


m 



O . t.\-*\ -r> 




THE 

PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY 
DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



NAOMI NORSWORTHY. Ph.D. 



(SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF 

PHILOSOPHY, COLUMHIA UNIVERSITY) 



NEW YORK 
November, 1906 



THE 

PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY 

DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



NAOMI NORSWORTHY, Ph.R 



(SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF 

PHILOSOPHY. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY) 



NEW YORK 
November, 1906 



1.1 



^H6 



PHEKS OF 

liw Xevi Era Printing Cow»*fr 

V«v*OftT5B»^ Ph. 



CONTENTS 

§ 1. History of the interest in mental defectives 1 

§ 2. Definition and classification 4 

§ 3. Criticisms of the available literature 7 

§ 4. Summary of previous experimental work 9 

§ 5. Statement and discussion of the particular problems of this 

research 1 7 

§ 6. Description of the tests 20 

§ 7. Probable sources of error 27 

§ 8. Actual marks gained by the defectives in the different tests. . 28 

§ 9. Standard marks gained from ordinary children in the tests. . . 44 
§ 10. Method of comparing defective children with ordinary children 50 
§ 11. Tables showing the results of the comparison of defective 

children with ordinary children 54 / 

§ 12. Results bearing on physical status 68 

§ 13. Results bearing on the continuity of the species 77 

§ 14. Results p.eabing on the generality of the mental defect 82 

§ 15. Improvement among defecti\'es in a year's time 85 ^ 

§ 16. Application of the results to the subject matter used in the 

education of defectives 92 

§ 17. Application of the results to the methods used in the educa- 
tion OF defectives 9g 

APPENDIX 

§ 18. Tables showing the improvement of the defectives in a year's 

"ME 101 

§ 19. Keys used in marking the tests ]0g 

§ 20. Characteristics of the defectives tested 109 



THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT 

CHILDREN 



§ 1. History of the Interest in Mental Defectives 

Mental deficiency has existed and has been recognized as such 
since the earliest times. We find it mentioned in the legends and 
historical writings of the most ancient peoples. In those far away 
times we find that individuals of weak intellect were treated very 
differently in different nations. Among the Orientals, the Bra- 
zilians, the North American Indians and in many parts of Ireland 
and Brittany, the feeble-minded were considered to be under the 
special protection of deity, and consequently were treated with all 
respect and consideration. The Greeks, on the contrary, took the 
opposite point of view; the mentally weak as well as the physically 
weak were left to die from exposure. 

During the middle ages we find scattered records which seem to 
show that in some monasteries and nunneries of Europe a few feeble- 
minded children were eared for in a common sense way. Bonnet 
and Pereire in their treatment and care of the deaf-mutes were the 
forerunners and gave the inspiration to those who were interested 
in the mental defectives. It is not until the nineteenth century, 
however, that we find either scientific research and inquiry in the 
field of mental deficiency or any literature at all valuable. 

The first publications worthy of note are from the hand of Itard, 
a French physician. About 1800 some soldiers passing through the 
forests of Aveyron discovered a boy, more animal than human, whom 
they brought to Dr. Pinel, of Paris. Upon examination, Pinel pro- 
nounced the boy to be an idiot and therefore incurable. Itard took 
the opposite point of view and contended that the case was not be- 
yond hope. To prove his diagnosis Itard undertook the treatment 
of this young savage and in 1801 published his pamphlet, De VEdu- 
cation d'un Homme Sauvage which was followed in 1807 by another. 
These are virtually reports of Itard 's methods and theories of the 
treatment and education of this idiot. We know of the failure of 
the physician's plans, but his work and suggestions for the method- 
ical treatment of like cases gave the impetus necessary to further 
work in this same field, and from this time on we find that the educa- 
tion of the feeble-minded attracted much attention in France. 
1 1 



2 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

From the reports of the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb in 
Hartford, Conn., it seems that in 1818 several idiots were received 
at that institution and subjected to the same treatment as the other 
inmates, with some hopeful results. In 1824 Belhomme published 
his views concerning idiocy, which were in brief that it was possible 
to ameliorate the unfortunate condition of idiots and to furnish 
them with a sort of education, the degree to which they were capable 
of benefiting by this education being dependent upon the degree of 
idiocy. This view was put into execution four years later by Ferrus, 
who organized a school for idiots at Bicetre, in connection with the 
asylum there. In 1831 Falret undertook the same task at the Sal- 
petriere. In 1834 was opened a private school for idiots in Paris by 
Voisin. This lasted for only a few years; but Voisin there gained 
some of the experience which later led to the publication of his book, 
De I'idiotie chez les enfants. In 1837, with the help of Esquirol, 
Itard began a series of experiments upon an infant idiot and re- 
ported his results from time to time. 

It is to Edward Seguin that the honor belongs of having created 
a real method, the 'methode medico-pedagogique, ' for the treatment 
and education of idiots. In 1866 Seguin published his theories and 
method in a book entitled Idiocy and Its Treatment hy the Physio- 
logical Method. This method as outlined by Seguin in this work is 
still followed in general in the education of the feeble-minded. 

The essentials of this method are embodied in the following ex- 
tracts. The necessary conditions for the improvement of imbeciles 
are that "the treatment be not only hygienic, but moral; that the 
education be not the putting in action of acquired faculties, which is 
the education of the common schools, but the development of the 
functions, of the aptitudes, of the faculties, and of the instructive 
and moral tendencies." These powers are to be ascertained by 
physiological and psychological examination of each case, and the 
process of education then followed is: "(1) The motor power, 
(2) The senses, (3) The perceptive faculties, (4) By gymnastics of 
comparison, (5) By gymnastics of invention, (6) Excitement of 
sentiments and instincts by normal necessities, (7) Special excita- 
tion of the faculty of spontaneousness, (8) Incessant provocation to 
regular action, to speaking and to the exercise of the faculties then 
developed. The aptitudes thus created are then applied to different 
specialties, according to the fortune, age or position of each indi- 
vidual, care being taken to choose in every case an occupation which 
will keep in activity the muscular system as well as the mental 
faculties. ' ' 



HISTORY OF INTEREST IN MENTAL DEFECTIVES 3 

Contemporary with Seguin, Saegert, in 1842, opened a school for 
idiots at Berlin, and in the same year Guggenbiihl established in 
Abendberg, Switzerland, a school for the education of cretins. Both 
these men followed the physiologic line of training mentioned above. 
Guggenbiihl went still further and in his plantation near Inter- 
laken foreshadowed the colony plan of the large institutions of 

to-day. / 

This work 'at various places on the Continent stimulated interest 
in England, and in 1846 Miss White opened a school for defectives 
at Bath. In the course of the next few years, physicians in London 
became interested in her efforts, and several schools were opened in 

that city. 

In America, attention was attracted to this new field of work by 
the interest shown abroad, and in 1847 the state legislature of 
Massachusetts took up the question for debate. In 1848 an experi- 
mental school for idiots was established under Dr. Howe. Three 
years later, after having achieved valuable results, the school was 
made permanent and became the Massachusetts School for the Feeble- 
Minded, now at Waverley, Mass. A similar institution was opened 
by the State of New York in 1851. Several states followed the lead 
of these two and established state institutions for the care of these 
unfortunates. Private schools also were opened under the control 
of eminent physicians. Thus interest has gone on increasing until 
in 1901 there existed in this country twenty public and twelve 
private institutions of importance for the education of idiots. 

A further definite step in advance has been made in this field 
since 1899. For years the public schools have been hampered by 
what we have called 'backward children,' and the method of treat- 
ment of this class of children has offered the material for many a 
dispute. In London, in 1899, this question was brought before the 
school board, and a committee was appointed to investigate the condi- 
tions as existing at that time in the schools. Their report was that 
at least ten per cent, of the children attending the public schools 
needed special instruction. These children, many of them not de- 
fective enough to warrant the placing of them in an institution, were 
yet so defective as to be unable to profit by ordinary school instruc- 
tion. Not only do the children of this type gain very little benefit 
from the school work, but their presence in the class prevents the 
normal children from gaining the most from the instruction. In 
an investigation conducted among California children, W. S. Monroe 
reached the same conclusions. 

Acting upon the report of the committee, the London School 
Board established 'special classes' in connection with schools in vari- 



4 PSTGHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

OTIS parts of the city to which the backward children between the 
ages of seven and sixteen could be sent. Special programs were pro- 
vided for these classes, and the number of children in each was lim- 
ited to twenty. In this and in every other way the work was adapted 
to the intellectual deficiencies of the pupils. Some of the children 
sent to these classes, after having attended for some time, were sent 
back to the regular school work ; others were given up as practically 
hopeless cases and sent to the institutions. In June, 1899, London 
had 43 centers comprising 85 such classes with an average attend- 
ance of 1,289 children. Philadelphia, Providence, Boston, and in 
1903 New York also, have followed the example set by London and 
provide for children needing special and unique instruction in the 
public school system. 

Besides these special classes inaugurated by some of the large 
cities, all the civilized countries have by this time undertaken the 
care of the feeble-minded in a more or less efficient way. In 1904 
France had 4 institutions for the care and treatment of defectives 
Germany, 25; Denmark, 5; Jutland, 1; Sweden, 33; Norway, 8 
Eussia, 1; Holland, 1; Austria, 4; Switzerland, 18; Belgium, 9 
Italy, 7 ; England, 13 ; Scotland, 3 ; Ireland, 1 ; Canada, 1 ; Australia, 
2 ; Japan, 2 ; and the United States, 30.^ 

§ 2. Definition and Classification 

As this investigation is of an experimental character it is not 
necessary to go deeply into the literature on the subject, which is 
rather extensive and of a purely descriptive character. The stand- 
point reached by investigators in regard to definition and classifica- 
tion may, however, be mentioned. 

The following are samples of the definitions given : 

Lord Coke— "An idiot, or natural fool, is one who from his 
nativity, by perpetual infirmity, is non compos mentis." 

Old English law defines an idiot as a person of non-sane memory. 
It says, "It is sufficient to find him so if he has not any use of rea- 
son ; as if he can not count 20 pence ; if he has not understanding to 
tell his age, or who is his father or mother. ' ' 

Bourneville — "Idiocy consists of the arrested development either 
congenital or acquired of the intellectual, moral and emotional facul- 
ties, which may or may not be accompanied by motor difficulties and 
perversion of instincts." 

Esquirol — "Idiocy is not a disease but a condition in which intel- 
lectual faculties are never manifested or have never developed suffi- 

^M. W. Barr, Mental Defectives, pp. 71-77. 



DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION 5 

ciently to enable the idiot to acquire such amount of knowledge as 
persons of his own age and placed in similar circumstances with him- 
self are capable of receiving. Idiocy commences with life or at that 
age which precedes the development of the intellectual and effective 
faculties, which are from the first what they are doomed to be dur- 
ing the whole period of existence." 

Seguin— "Physiologically he can not; intellectually he knows 
not; mentally he wills not." 

Blackstone — "An idiot or natural born fool is one that hath no 
understanding from his nativity and therefore is by law presumed 
never likely to attain any." 

Clouston— "Idiocy and imbecility are conditions of mental en- 
feeblement resulting from want of brain development before birth 
or in childhood. The mental faculties were never there, their organ 
being unfit to manifest them. ' ' 

Voisin— "The idiot is an individual whose intellectual, sensory 
and motor faculties are not developed or are abnormally developed 
in a defective manner or are arrested in their evolution before or 
some years after birth to a degree which they can not overcome in 
consequence of chronic lesions of the brain." 

Maudsley— "A defect of understanding by reason of some nat- 
ural incapacity— which no education will overcome." 

Eichholz— "General lack of progress is accepted as the cardinal 
sign of mental deficiency in Germany." 

Ireland — "Idiocy is mental deficiency or extreme stupidity, de- 
pending upon mal-nutrition or disease of nervous centers occurring 
either before birth or before the evolution of mental faculties in 
childhood. ' ' 

A Report on the Physical and Mental Condition of the Feeble 
Minded, London — "It manifests itself through a defective or diseased 
organization, for even when there are no visible defects, the mischief 
has presumably begun in the brain matter itself. It is frequently 
indicated by outward physical abnormalities, or an imperfect gen- 
eral conformation of the body with usually shortness of stature." 

Lippestad— "All children who are partially or wholly unfitted 
to profit by the teaching of ordinary schools may safely be classed 
under the title of Abnormal." 

Osborne— "Perhaps the most noticeable characteristic of the 
truly feeble-minded child is the very childishness or immatureness 
of its acts, its expressions or its demonstrative desires. In the 
majority of eases there will be found to exist some physical abnor- 
mality, blight or peculiarity that will give a clue to the retarded 
development of brain and mind. ' ' 



6 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

The following are samples of classifications used: 

Esquirol — According to the powers of speech. 

1. Those individuals using short phrases. 

2. Those using monosyllables. 

3. Those making cries only. 
Howe — According to powers of speech. 

1. Simpletons, those individuals using simple sentences. 

2. Fools, those using single words. 

3. Idiots, those using simple sounds. 
Hoflfbauer— According to powers of judgment. 
Seguin— According to physiological conditions. 

1. Profound idiocy, the central organs affected. 

2. Superficial idiocy, the terminal organs affected. 

Duncan and Millard— According to physical defects. Eight classes. 
Voisin— 

1. Complete idiocy, which is absolute idiocy either congenital or 

acquired. 

2. Incomplete idiocy, that which is susceptible of amelioration 

either congenital or acquired. 

3. Congenital or acquired imbecility. 

4. Mental debility. 

Piper — According to the presence or absence of convulsions. 
Sollier — According to the attention. 

1. Absolute idiocy, complete absence of attention. 

2. Simple idiocy, weak attention. 

3. Imbecility, fickle attention. 
Ireland— Pathological. 

1. Genetous. 2. Microcephalic. 3. Hydrocephalic. 

4. Eclampsic. 5. Epileptic. 6. Paralytic. 
7. Traumatic. 8. Inflammatory. 9. Sclerotic. 

10. Syphilitic. 11. Cretinism.^ 12. Idiocy of Deprivation. 

Tuke— 

1. Those who exhibit nothing beyond the reflex movements known 

as excito-motor. 

2. Those whose reflex acts are consensual or sensori-motor, in- 

cluding those of ideo-motor and emotional character. 

^ As the cause for cretinism has been found to be a lack of certain chemical 
constituents in the blood, it is possible that idiocy in some of its other forma 
may be traced to a similar cause. Instead of classifying defectives according 
to mental traits, or physical symptoms or the kind of treatment needed, from a 
medical standpoint at least, the most helpful classification might be one based 
on the * chemistry of the idiot.' 



CRITICISMS OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE 7 

3. Those who manifest volition— whose ideas produce some intel- 
lectual operations and consequent will. 
Kerlin — 

1. Apathetic idiots, 

2. Excitable idiots. 

3. Low-grade imbeciles. 

4. Middle-grade imbeciles. 

5. High-grade or first imbeciles. 

6. Juvenile insane imbeciles. 
Kraepelin— 

1. Stupid imbeciles. 

2. Active imbeciles. 

3. Moral imbeciles. 

4. Superficial idiots. 

5. Profound idiots. 
Barr— 



Asylum care 



,.-... ( Apathetic. 

1. Profound Idiots j^^^.^^^^^ 

„.,.,. f Apathetic. 

2. Superficial idiots | -^^^-^^^^^ 

3. Idio-imbecile. 
Low grade. 



Custodial life { 4. Moral imbecile -j Middle grade. 

[^ High grade. 

- f 5. Low grade imbecile. 
Apprenticeship and J ^ Middle grade imbecile. 
Colony life ^ ^ ^.^^ ^^^^^ imbecile. 

Trained for a place r g ^^^^^^^ .^ mentally feeble, 
m the world (^ 

§ 3. Criticisms of the Available Literature 

From the definitions and classifications quoted, it is evident that 
there is great diversity of opinion upon these two fundamental mat- 
ters of psycho-asthenics. This is but a sample of the confusion and 
disagreement that is found with reference to almost every other fact 
mentioned in the literature on the subject. There is very little exact 
detailed description *of the mental or physical make-up of defectives. 
We find scattered observations of single cases in medical records and 
the reports of physicians, which are concerned chiefly with causes 
for idiocy and the accompanying brain conditions, with vague gen- 
eralizations about defectives as a whole and with few or no facts to 
support them. The only exact measurements which I have met are 



8 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

those of Jacobs, Galton, Johnson, Wylie and Kelly, which will be 
discussed later. 

There are several reasons for this condition of affairs. In the 
first place, writers differ materially as to the cause of idiocy, some 
maintaining that the condition is due to malformation of the brain, 
others that it is due to a diseased condition, and still others that it 
is due to retarded development, the condition being that of an indi- 
vidual reaching a lower stage of development than the normal person. 
This seems to be a matter of opinion, since the histology of the brain, 
in different conditions, is as yet very incompletely worked out. 
Ireland says that "save in the cases of hydrocephalic and micro- 
cephalic idiots, the size of the head gives no estimate of the compara- 
tive intelligence of the children. ' ' And again both Barr and Ireland 
agree that "mental capacity diminishes with the brain weight if we 
use large weights ; but if we use smaller weights, two or three ounces, 
for example, we soon find that we can not establish a constant relation 
between the size of the hemisphere and the amount of mental power 
shown. ' ' However, these opinions do not deal with the structure of 
the brain. As to the presence of disease, Wilwarth holds that of 
the brains examined only fifty per cent, were diseased. The only 
work which truly touches the points mentioned above is that of Ham- 
marberg, published in 1893. This work has not been continued; at 
least no further work supplementing it has been given to the public. 
His result rests upon the examination of the brains of nine idiots. 
He holds that all idiots have fewer cells in the brain than other 
people, also that the cells are simpler. In some cases this lack of 
development may be limited to only one part of the cortex. He finds 
three types of development: (1) Development of the brain becomes 
impaired in embryonic stage. No development of consciousness or 
conception is possible. (2) Development of the brain becomes im- 
paired in a higher embryonic stage or in the first year of life. Con- 
sciousness and conception are possible, but no higher development. 
(3) Development of the brain is impaired during the first year or 
later; one section is most affected, but the whole brain reaches the 
development of a younger normal child. Consciousness and con- 
ception are possible, but no higher station can be reached by the 
individual. 

In the fields of brain histology and physiological chemistry will 
probably be found the answers to many of the debated points in this 
subject, but until there has been more research along these lines we 
can not hope for agreement among writers in general. 

A second cause for conflicting opinions has been the fact that 
idiocy in all its grades has been confused with insanity, and the man- 



SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORK 9 

ner of treatment and the investigations of insanity have been made 
to serve also for feeble-mindedness. However, this fallacy has been 
avoided by some of our recent writers and such treatment is not 
found in the newer books on the subject. 

The third reason for the diversity of opinion may be found in 
the point of view taken by the investigator. The basis for classifica- 
tion chosen may be etiology, symptomatology, pathological anatomy 
or education, and with this diiference in point of view— a difference 
which must tinge the whole investigation— it is no wonder that we 
find statements which are even contradictory. 

A fourth reason, and to my mind the most important one, is the 
lack of scientific experiments as to both the physical and the mental 
traits of the idiot. 

§ 4. Summary of Previous Experimental Work 

Experimental evidence as to the position occupied by idiots in 
various mental and physical traits as compared with the position 
occupied by ordinary children in the same traits, is the only means 
of definitely answering questions in the psychology of idiocy. From 
such exact measurements as exist, namely, those of Jacobs, Galton, 
Johnson, Wylie and Kelly, we get the following facts. Jacobs, when 
using the digit test in order to ascertain the memory span of school 
children, thought that his results would mean more could the tests be 
given over a wider range of intellectual ability, Galton accordingly 
supplemented his work by giving approximately the same tests to 
44 feeble-minded children. The conclusion drawn from this work 
is simply that none of the idiots attain the normal memory span— 
the average for the idiots being 4 digits. 

In the Psychological Review for July, 1903, R. S. Kelly reports 
a comparative study of psychophysical tests on normal and abnormal 
children. The tests were given to the children in the elementary 
school of the University of Chicago and to those in the Chicago 
Physiological School. "The tests may be divided roughly into three 
classes. There were the ordinary tests of the senses of hearing, sight, 
taste, smell, touch and temperature, together with sensitiveness to 
pain. There was a series of muscular tests involving numerous 
forms of muscular coordination with special reference to rapidity, 
accuracy and steadiness of movement and fatigue. And third, a 
number of tests were made with special reference to prevalent forms 
of imagery in peculiar types of children, certain emotional reactions, 
etc." Quoting the results which bear directly on the tests given: 
"(4) Approximate uniformity of results in psychical reactions is 
characteristic of healthy consciousness. Inability to secure this 



10 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

tmiformity is at once a sign of a neurotic condition, which if neg- 
lected may become permanent. (5) ... A child of arrested devel- 
opment has a well-developed automobile consciousness. He has 
power of imagery with reference to this machine, visual, auditory 
and motor, which measured in terms of race development alone would 
indicate a degree of intelligence far advanced. ... (7) These tests 
with both classes of children agree in indicating that touch is a more 
primitive sense than color. It develops first and maintains its pre- 
cedence for some years. (How long is as yet undetermined.) (8) 
Bright colors are generally preferred by these abnormal children. 
(9) The grosser movements of the body develop before the finer ones. 
There is greater accuracy and rapidity of movement with the shoul- 
der than with the finger, and this rule is followed by children up to 
the highest group (tenth) in the Elementary School. (10) There 
is a uniform increase of ability in motor coordination as the intelli- 
gence rises. (12) The lower the intelligence the more prominent 
the element of fatigue appears. (15) It is quite possible for the 
simple motor test which discloses the degree of intelligence to be so 
conducted as to give ethical data as well. (16) The abnormal child 
is deficient in intensity and not in extent of psychic function." 

The main criticisms of these results are two in number. In the 
first place the author has not treated enough eases to make his results 
reliable, especially in the case of the defective children. In some of 
the tests the number of cases tested is not stated and in no instance 
is the result obtained for more than sixteen children. In the second 
place the conclusions quoted are often vague and do not seem to grow 
directly out of the tests. 

Probably the most extensive measurements of the feeble-minded 
have been made by Dr. R. T. "Wylie and reported in the Journal of 
Psycho- Asthenics (Vol. IV., No. 3; Vol. V., No. 1; and Vol. VII., 
No. 1), which I copy almost in full. His measurements of the 
height and weight of the feeble-minded children taken in their ordi- 
nary school clothes are given in the table on the opposite page. 
V^ "To study the condition of taste among the lowest grade of 
* feeble-minded children, the author made use of sugar, quinine sul- 
phate, tartaric acid and salt, applying them to the tongue and 
noticing if the subject gave any indication of a difference. Thirty- 
five boys and thirty-one girls were tested. Of these eight girls and 
fifteen boys, or 24 per cent, of all, gave no indication of a difference. 
Eight boys and eight girls, or 17 per cent, of all, showed a difference 
for quinine; twenty-one girls and nineteen boys, or 41 per cent, of 
all, showed a difference for tartaric acid ; and fifteen girls and seven 
boys, or 23 per cent, of all, showed a difference for salt. Thus the 



SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORK 



11 



taste for bitter seems to be most frequently absent, while that for 
sour is most commonly present. 



NO. — Number of Boys. 
W. B.— Weight of Boys. 
H. B.— Height of Boys. 
Weights are in Kgms. 
Heights given in Mm. 



NO. G.— Number of Girls. 
W. G.— Weight of Girls. 
M. V. — Mean Variation. 
H. G.— Height of Girls. 



WEIGHT 


HEIGHT 


BOYS 


GIRLS 


BOYS 


GIRLS 


) 


O 


d 


m 


> 


d 


d 


> 


¥ 


d 


ffl 


> 


d 


d 


>-■ 


J5 


^ 


g 


d 


^ 


^ 




^ 


a 


g 


d 
1 


734 


S 


1 


2 


6.260 


1.45 


1 


11.340 




1 


1 


700 






2 


2 


12.61 


2.78 


1 


9.300 




2 


2 


828 


35 


1 


752 




3 


2 


12.156 


.54 








3 


2 


839 


13 








4 


2 


13.608 


2.50 


3 


14.153 


1.27 


4 


2 


931 


86 


3 


939 


36 


5 


3 


16.647 


1.32 


3 


16.238 


1.50 


5 


3 


979 


44 


3 


992 


48 


6 


7 


20.048 


2.13 


4 


16.601 


2.22 


6 


7 


1099 


76 


3 


1046 


26 


7 


9 


20.184 


2.45 


6 


19.504 


1.86 


7 


9 


1136 


47 


6 


1095 


66 


8 


12 


24.802 


2.77 


11 


22.634 


3.90 


8 


12 


1217 


67 


10 


1168 


61 


9 


16 


26.399 


2.68 


20 


25.854 


4.04 


9 


16 


1231 


48 


19 


1248 


69 


10 


20 


28.304 


4.36 


14 


30.799 


8.94 


10 


18 


1303 


87 


12 


1305 


135 


11 


29 


31.706 


3.13 


17 


28.257 


5.63 


11 


29 


1351 


64 


15 


1315 


87 


12 


26 


31.978 


5.49 


15 


33.475 


6.35 


12 


24 


1391 


64 


15 


1374 


91 


13 


27 


36.106 


7.44 


20 


40.687 


8.30 


13 


27 


1414 


95 


19 


1445 


70 


14 


29 


43.001 


7.20 


23 


40.778 


8.17 


14 


28 


1539 


82 


20 


1442 


109 


15 


22 


43.636 


9.71 


18 


41.140 


11.02 


15 


20 


1522 


91 


16 


1471 


110 


16 


27 


52.118 


8.35 


22 


45.859 


8.53 


16 


27 


1550 


64 


21 


1497 


113 


17 


27 


50.439 


9.84 


24 


50.394 


8.48 


17 


27 


1590 


65 


24 


1506 


81 


18 


19 


65.499 


10.93 


22 


50.258 


7.26 


18 


18 


1644 


52 


20 


1525 


71 


19 


20 


57.741 


8.94 


20 


56.790 


8.17 


19 


20 


1665 


79 


20 


1545 


64 


20 


15 


62. 41 


6.71 


19 


51.437 


9.30 


20 


15 


1684 


69 


18 


1538 


78 


21 


16 


59.693 


7.39 


22 


53.161 


8.26 


21 


16 


1657 


60 


22 


1537 


91 


22 


8 


66.860 


6.17 


22 


51.165 


8.26 


22 


8 


1718 


35 


22 


1544 


79 


23 


17 


59.556 


7.76 


9 


56.064 


6.31 


23 


16 


1681 


58 


9 


1558 


61 


24 


6 


59.920 


8.62 


18 


54.295 


11.20 


24 


6 


1613 


80 


18 


1546 


84 


25 


6 


60.146 


6.35 


18 


51.618 


8.89 


25 


6 


1657 


56 


18 


1522 


102 


26 


9 


56.744 


10.70 


12 


56.245 


11.34 


26 


9 


1653 


102 


12 


1566 


59 


27 


5 


56.290 


6.12 


6 


63.095 


11.16 


27 


5 


1630 


87 


6 


1528 


61 


28 


10 


62.823 


2.86 


14 


48.635 


8.85 


28 


10 


1690 


31 


14 


1528 


79 


29 


8 


60.146 


11.16 


8 


64.229 


15 38 


29 


8 


1621 


155 


8 


1528 


45 


30 


4 


61.326 


9.17 8 


61.054 


7.39 


30 


4 


1691 


66 


8 


1541 


48 



"To study this taste of the brightest feeble-minded children, 
solutions of the above substances were made, and these were added a 
little at a time to a quantity of water until the subject perceived 
the proper taste, the tongue being cleaned and dried at proper in- 
tervals. From the quantity of taste solution and water taken the 
strength of the solution tasted could be calculated. Twenty children 
were tested. For fourteen of these the averages were: 



12 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

"For sugar, 1.3 per cent, M. V. 0.4, or 1 part to 77; for salt, 
0.48 per cent, M. V. 0.19, or 1 part to 208 ; for acid, 0.41 per cent., 
M. V. 0.40, or 1 part to 244; for quinine, 0.0177 per cent., M. V. 
0.0062, or 1 part to 5,694. 

"The strength of solutions for normal people as determined by 
Bailey and Nichols is for sugar 1 part to 199, for salt 1 part to 2,240, 
for sulphuric acid 1 part to 2,080 and for quinine 1 part to 390,000. 
A marked dullness throughout, and especially so for bitter. 

"Six of those tested were unable to recognize the taste of one or 
more of these substances even when used full strength. With two 
of them salt was wanting, with three of them sour, and with two of 
them bitter, in every case being identified with another taste. 

"Hence, with the feeble-minded, as with criminals, we find a 
marked dullness of taste. With a few some of the tastes are lack- 
ing, while with the lowest grades only one or two may be present. 

"The reaction times were taken with a Hipp's chronoscope and 
the common touch key; for sound an electric hammer was used. 
The current through the instrument was reversed after each reading. 
Of those making the test twenty-two— sixteen boys and six girls- 
were considered to have made the test properly. Their ages varied 
from eight to thirty-seven years, the average being twenty years. 
The average number of tests for each was twenty-one. The average 
reaction time was 0.338 seconds, with a mean variation of 0.08 sec- 
onds. The normal reaction time lies between one tenth and two 
tenths seconds, say 0.148 seconds, and the mean variations can be 
put at 0.04 seconds. 

"In the number of tests made the effects of fatigue and practice 
seemed to about balance each other. Twelve other children were 
tested. Of these five were unable to perform the test, and seven 
of them had an average reaction time of 0.538 seconds, with a mean 
variation of 0.164 seconds. 

Sixteen children made the tests for sound reaction. The average 
number of tests was twenty-four. The average reaction time was 
0.293 seconds, with a mean variation of 0.085 seconds. The normal 
time has been found to lie between 0.120 and 0.180 seconds, with a 
mean variation of 0.022 seconds. However, fifty-three men in the 
University of Minnesota gave an average reaction time of 0.214 
seconds. The reaction time of the insane to sound has been found 
to vary from 0.200 and 0.340 seconds, with a high mean variation. 
On being directed to be quick, eleven children, in a series of five 
tests, succeeded in reducing their reaction time by an average of 
0.012 seconds. Five who did the touch reaction tests were unable to 
do the sound reaction tests. 



SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORE 13 

"Among the children tested there were fourteen Mongols. Of 
these eight were regarded as having made the tests successfully. 
Their average touch reaction time was 0.396 seconds, with a mean 
variation of 0.095 seconds. The average of the other six was 0.570, 
with a mean variation of 0.160 seconds. Seven of the Mongols per- 
formed the sound tests with an average of 0.360 seconds, and with a 
mean variation of 0,113 seconds. 

"In order to test the visual memory of our children the author 
made use of form, color and letters. For the first, ten forms were 
cut from card board, the more common geometrical forms as well 
as some irregular ones being chosen. Two sets were made, one for 
the child and one for the experimenter. For the color tests, ten 
colors were selected from Bradley's colored papers, the endeavor 
being made to get them as unlike as possible, and affixed to cards. 
For the last test paper letters mounted upon cards were used, the 
consonants being chosen so as to exclude syllable formation. The 
child being ready for the experiment, a set of forms, colors or letters 
were arranged before him on the table ; five of the same series were 
then shown to him by the experimenter for two seconds, as indicated 
by a metronome, then they were covered from view and the child 
was required to select the same five as he remembered them from the 
sets of objects before him, the order of selection being disregarded. 
Five trials of each sort were made, and the number of correct selec- 
tions noted. The results were as follows: 

Form Color Letters 

Girls 26 2.3 2.4 2.5 

Boys 25 2.5 2.3 2.7 

"Thus out of five objects these were the average number cor- 
rectly remembered. The ages of the children ranged from fifteen 
to thirty, and we think that we are not wrong in expecting almost 
perfect answers to our tests from normal people of the same age. 
The memory error for five objects of our children is : 

Form Color Letters 

Girls 2.7 2.6 2.5 

Boys 2.5 2.7 2.5 

"Grouping the children according to mental ability, as estimated 
by their teacher. A being the brightest, we have : 

Boys 
Girls 





^i'orm 


M. V. 


Color 


M. V. 


Letters 


M.V. 


A 


3.3 


0.6 


3.2 


0.5 


4.1 


0.5 


B 


2.9 


0.3 


3.0 


0.4 


3.2 


0.4 





2.5 


0.6 


1.7 


0.9 


1.8 


1.0 


A 


2.9 


0.4 


3.1 


0.5 


3.6 


0.7 


B 


2.4 


0.4 


2.5 


0.5 


1.8 


0.8 


C 


1.9 


0.7 


2.0 


1.2 


2.2 


1.6 



H PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

"Interpreting the mean variation as the uncertainty of memory, 
and deducing the memory error from the other columns, we see that 
the error and uncertainty of memory increase with mental dullness. 
In regard to the influence of the knowledge of the names on the 
memory of the objects, we find that the average number of names 
known by each child is : 

Form Color Letters 

Boys A 4.5 6.6 10 

B 3.5 5.0 7.8 

Girls A 4.1 8.6 10 

B 2.0 2.0 1.0 

This shows a slight influence in colors and letters with the girls. 

' ' The tests so far having to do with visual memory, we next took 
up for consideration the auditory memory. To this end, we made 
use of the following tests. First a series of nonsense syllables were 
made, endeavoring to get some as free from association as possible. 
These were read to the child at the rate of one per second, five 
making one test. Next were selected groups of six associated words, 
which were likewise read to the child at one per second. He was 
required to repeat them immediately, and both the words remem- 
bered and the number of associations were noted. Lastly, groups 
of sentences were selected from their school readers. These were of 
various lengths from five to thirty-five words. They were read to 
the child at the rate of a word per second and he was required to 
repeat it immediately. The number of words correctly remembered 
was noted. The results were as follows: 





Syllables 


Words 


Ass'n 


Sentences 


Boys 


2.1 


3.9 


1.8 


10 


Girls 


2.1 


3.7 


1.9 


12 



"The small number of associations and the large number of 
words is very noticeable. Chance we consider to be excluded by the 
method of work of the children. 

"Grouping our results according to the mental ability of the 
children, we have : 

Boys 



Girls 



"Here, as above, we find the error and uncertainty of memory 
increase with the mental dullness. These tests in auditory memory 
seemed easier to perform than those for visual memory, for four girls 





Syl. 


M. V. 


Words 


M. V. 


Ass'n 


M. V. 


Sent. 


M. V. 


A 


3.0 


0.4 


5.0 


0.2 


2.8 


0.4 


15 


3 


B 


2.1 


1.1 


4.0 


0.6 


1.6 


0.7 


12 


6 


C 


1.6 


0.8 


3.1 


0.9 


1.4 


0.6 


7 


3 


A 


2.5 


0.7 


4.2 


0.6 


2.2 


0.6 


16 


5 


B 


2.1 


1.5 


3.5 


1.8 


2.1 


1.2 


10 


5 


C 


0.9 


0.5 


3.3 


0.6 


1.3 


0.6 


5 


2 



SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTAL WORK 15 

and two boys graded C while being able to perform the auditory- 
tests, could not do the visual tests. Grouping the results to show the 
average number remembered in each way, we have : 





Auditory 


Visual 


Boys 


2.6 


2.4 


Girls 


2.6 


2.5 



"This shows practically no difference. Yet five girls and two 
boys said that they remembered by 'looks,' and seven girls and nine 
boys by 'name.' However, we have seen some influence from the 
knowledge of the names in the visual tests. 

' ' The same children were given a test on the memory of muscular 
movements. A graduated rod was fixed on suitable supports and 
two adjustable stops or rings were placed on the rod so that any dis- 
tance could be set off by them. Three distances were used; ten, 
thirty and fifty centimeters. In performing the test, the child was 
seated so that one of the stops on the rod was in front of him, the 
other stop was set at the required distance ; with eyes shut, the child 
then moved the index finger of his right hand from one stop to the 
other and then back. The outer stop was then removed and he was 
required to move his hand over the original distance as he remem- 
bered it. In the first series this was done immediately, then after 
a wait of ten seconds, then of twenty seconds. The results for 100, 
300 and 500 millimeters were as follows : 

sec M. V. 10 sec. M. V. 20 sec. M. V. 

Boys 17 108 8.1 111 10.2 144 19.6 

Girls 17 108 7.7 113 15.2 108 14.5 

Boys 311 16.5 279 23.6 271 27.6 

Girls 287 17.8 282 21.8 277 24.7 

Boys 490 18.7 463 33.2 447 31.8 

Girls 476 18.1 457 22.4 456 23.1 

''The averages found by Scripture for the same distances: 

sec. M. V. 10 sec. M. V. 20 sec. M. V. 

— 1.0 0.9 —3.1 1.1 —0.1 1.2 

-fto 2.8 to 1.3 +to 2.8 to 1.7 —to 4.0 to 1.9 

"Comparing these results from normal people with the ones we 
have given, we find the memory error of the feeble-minded to be 
from two to ten times the normal, and the uncertainty of memory 
to be from five to fifteen times the normal. The memory error, as 
with normal people, increases with increased distance while the un- 
certainty steadily increases. Grouping the results according to 
mental ability, we have, for 100, 300 and 500 millimeters: 



A 


102 


6.1 


104 


10.3 


104 


13.9 


B 


107 


9.5 


111 


11.7 


140 


19.8 


C 


110 


8.9 


121 


8.4 


196 


26.2 


A 


107 


7.6 


115 


16.4 


103 


11.9 


B 


115 


12.6 


100 


6.0 


144 


33.8 


A 


305 


17.2 


282 


25.4 


268 


28.1 


B 


297 


10.3 


259 


21.5 


305 


24.6 


C 


320 


23.3 


298 


24.0 


355 


31.8 


A 


291 


14.2 


280 


22.4 


274 


25.8 


B 


273 


35.7 


297 


16.8 


302 


17.0 


A 


497 


15.3 


473 


46.8 


419 


31.9 


B 


483 


20.9 


429 


30.5 


455 


40.5 


C 


489 


18.9 


493 


20.2 


470 


21.3 


A 


484 


16.8 


458 


23.1 


455 


24.2 


B 


430 


24.1 


448 


17.0 


465 


15.2 



16 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

sec. M. V. 10 sec. M. V. 20 sec. M. V. 

Boys 

Girls 
Boys 

Girls 
Boys 

Girls 

"As a rule the error and uncertainty of memory decrease with 
intelligence, the results showing some variations probably due to the 
number examined." 

The chief question with regard to all this work is whether the 
tests were within the comprehension of the children, whether they 
really understood the directions. In both the experiments in taste 
and reaction time it is extremely difficult to make subjects under- 
stand just what is wanted, and with the feeble-minded this would 
be doubly true. In some cases the method used is indicated so 
roughly that one does not know how much the results mean. 

Johnson reports in Vol. III. of the Pedagogical Seminary three 
sets of tests on 72 feeble-minded children— a test of memory span 
for digits, of motor control and of the time of uncontrolled associa- 
tion of ideas. For the memory test the results are roughly as follows : 
"Approximately 25 per cent, of idiots reach or exceed the ability 
reached or exceeded by 50 per cent, of ordinary children. This dif- 
ference is not much greater than between boys and girls in spelling 
ability." As Johnson points out, the lack of retentiveness, physio- 
logically speaking, is not a prominent factor in feeble-mindedness. 
The apparent lack may be due to lack of attention or will power. 

In the experiment on motor control, 12 feeble-minded children 
were tested with the ataxiagraph. They seem in general to be 
slightly below the average ability in motor control attained by nor- 
mal children. 

The greatest difference was found in the third test, the time for 
uncontrolled associations. Thirty children were tested, the words 
used being— house, tree, chair, ship, clock and Fourth of July. 





Average 


Slowest 


Quickest 


For 30 feeble-minded boys, 


5.35 sec. 


10.70 


2.70 


For 10 ordinary boys, 


2.61 sec. 


3.47 


2.06 



STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION 17 

Compared witli results obtained by Cattell and Bryant from 
normal children, the idiots tend to make simple objective (rather 
than logical) associations. This, then, is the gist of the evidence on 
the subject and of course the main criticism upon it is that the tests 
are too narrow to admit of a conclusion as to the mental ability of 
idiots. The digit test has been felt by many experimenters to be 
unreliable as a real measure of memory, for in the first place it meas- 
ures only a very special kind of memory, and that dependent upon 
mere physical retentiveness, and in the second place the results gained 
from successive tests upon the same individual have such a wide 
variability as to render them of little practical value. From the 
standpoint of method another objection is the fact that these results 
are comparable with the records of children in general only with 
difficulty. So although this evidence may suggest the presence of 
certain differences between ordinary children and defectives in cer- 
tain abilities, it does not go deep enough nor cover a broad enough 
field to warrant definite conclusions. I have endeavored, therefore, 
to add to the work in this field by giving exact measurements of a 
number of traits, both physical and mental, in defectives, and in such 
a way that a comparison with the general run of people is possible. 
The results of such tests will, I think, throw some additional light 
upon the psychology of mental defectives, but I will postpone any 
further general statements until I have given the facts themselves. 

§ 5. Statement and Discussion of the Particular Problems of 

this Research 

I HAVE sought to determine (1) whether the mental defects of 
idiots are equaled by the bodily, (2) whether idiots form a separate 
species or not, and (3) whether the entire mental growth is retarded, 
that is, whether there is a lack of mental capacity all around. 

The decision of the best thinkers in this field as to the first and 
the third questions is pretty clearly shown by the definitions of 
idiocy quoted earlier in this report. Physical defects are so closely 
associated with mental deficiency, in the minds of some writers, that 
we find such defects mentioned as signs of idiocy. " It is frequently 
indicated by outward physical abnormalities or an imperfect general 
conformation of the body with usually shortness of stature." "In 
the majority of cases there will be found to exist some physical 
abnormality or blight or peculiarity that will give you a clue to the 
retarded development of brain and mind. " * ' The evidences of con- 
stitutional weakness, of slow growth, inferior size, of defects in the 
formation of palate, teeth, ears, skull, etc., are associated with poor 
sight and hearing , . . and psychic weakness in all or any respects." 
2 



18 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

"The idiot, commonly dwarfed and undersized, exhibits those 
signs of physical weakness which at once betray mental degenera- 
tion." 

"There is a stunting of the whole physical development; the 
stature is undersized or even dwarfish . . . the special senses, espe- 
cially hearing, are blunted. In eighty per cent, of cases the so-called 
stigmata of degeneration are present (Wildermuth), viz., malforma- 
tion of the eyes, mouth, nose and especially the lines of the face." 

G. Tarbell says that idiots are about two inches shorter and nine 
pounds lighter on the average than ordinary children of the same 
age. Dr. Shuttleworth agrees with him in his general conclusion 
that in physical development they are below what is considered as 
normal, but does not endorse his actual figures. On the whole, then, 
the tendency is to consider mental defectives as ill grown, poorly 
developed individuals. 

In the answer to the second question noted, by far the weight of 
opinion is on the affirmative side and the majority of writers seem 
to take it for granted and to consider the contrary opinion not worth 
discussion. The two points of view are represented by the following 
quotations : 

"As the scale of imbeciles ascends, it is found that the condition 
is evidenced not so much by low obtuseness as by irregularity of 
intellectual developments. This seems to make the difference be- 
tween the extreme stupidity of the lowest of the healthy and the 
highest form of the morbidly depraved type. , . . The two con- 
ditions do not merge gradually into each other."— Dr. J. B. Tuke. 
"We have then in the ascending scale, from imbecility upwards, this 
irregularity of mental conformation, and then again separated as by 
a clear line the uniformity of dullness of a low class of the healthy 
type. . . . Belonging, so to speak, to a separate series is the lowest 
of the healthy— the dulldird."— Report on Physical and Mental Affec- 
tions of Children — London. 

Sollier would go still further, for he classifies idiots and considers 
these divisions as representing entirely distinct and independent 
classes. He believes that idiocy is a symptom, imbecility a disease, 
and that they are ' entirely distinct and different. ' 

"The high-grade imbecile, who is almost normal, while closely 
approximating the backward or feebly-gifted child, yet differs in 
that he suffers from absolute defect, which may in a measure be 
supplemented by strengthening those things that remain to him, but 
which can never be wholly supplied or restored. His defect is not 
only limited mental capacity, but the psychic forces are wanting, 
feeble or backward in quality. . . . The feebly-gifted or backward 



STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION 19 

child has not crossed the border line and by making haste slowly and 
avoiding risk of over-stimulation may finally reach the goal open to 
all normal minds, though by a more circuitous route. He is not a 
mental defective, but a mental invalid, so to speak,"— Barr. 

The opposite opinion is held by the following writers: 

Seguin says that more than 30 per cent, of idiots and imbeciles 
put under suitable instruction have been taught to conform to social 
and moral law and rendered capable of order, of good feeling and 
of working like one third of an average man. More than 40 per cent, 
have become capable of ordinary transactions of life under friendly 
control ; of understanding moral and social abstractions ; and of work- 
ing like two thirds of a man. And lastly, from 25 to 30 per cent, 
come nearer and nearer the standard of manhood, till some of them 
will defy the scrutiny of good judges when compared with ordinary 
young men and women. 

Ireland writes : ' ' Imbecile children have a complete though weak 
outline of all the human faculties. In their minds every species of 
mental operation is performed, though on a small and feeble scale. 
They may have poor judgment, a weak memory, a feeble power of 
comparison, a beggarly imagination, a fitful attention, but they do 
possess judgment, memory, comparison, imagination and attention 
in varying though in meager proportions, and all these can be edu- 
cated and increased by exercise." 

Galton says: ''Analogy clearly shows there must be a fairly con- 
stant average mental capacity in the inhabitants of the British Isles, 
and that deviations from that average— upwards towards genius and 
downwards towards stupidity— must follow the law that governs 
deviations from all true averages." 

According to his estimates there are 250 eminent men to every 
million and 280 idiots to every million of population in Great Britain, 
and so he concludes, "Eminently gifted men are raised as much 
above mediocrity as idiots are depressed below it." 

Thorndike writes: "The ordinary usage of language tempts us 
to think that children can be divided sharply into normal and ab- 
normal, or into hearing and deaf, or into healthy and hysterical; 
but ordinary observation should teach us that within the human 
species sharp lines of distinction rarely correspond to reality. Thus 
we know that children do not form these separate groups, the bright, 
the ordinary and the dull, but there are a very few bright, others 
less so, others still less so, others still less, until we reach the 
lowest idiots by a gradual passage along the scale of intellect. ' ' Here 
we have the two points of view, one which says that the idiot is one 
apart by himself, belonging to a special species ; and the other which 



20 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

holds that the mental defective simply falls at the extreme of the 
low end of normal frequency of distribution, that the idiot occupies 
something of the same position as the genius does, only at the other 
end of the scale of human intelligence. 

As to the third question, the idiot has certainly been considered 
as an individual in whom mental capacity in all directions is lack- 
ing. The phrases, 'arrested mental development,' 'mental enfeeble- 
ment,' 'arrested development of the intellectual faculties,' are scat- 
tered rather indiscriminately through the books dealing with this 
subject. General mental deficiency seems to be the acknowledged 
characteristic of the intellectual nature of the idiot. ' ' Typically the 
feeble-minded child is weak on all sides— weak in perception, atten- 
tion, memory, in power over number and language, in combination, 
in judgment, in mental endurance, and no less defective in touch, in 
hand power, in general bodily activity and constitutional vigor." 

"This form of defective mental development is characterized by 
a moderate degree of mental incapacity, which is however of equal 
prominence on all sides of the mental life; it may, however, involve 
chiefly the moral field, when it is sometimes called moral imbecility. 
. . . Idiocy is characterized by a more profound degree of mental 
incapacity than imbecility. "—Defendorf. 

"A child, the feeble-minded must ever be by comparison and in 
competition with normal people, but even a child may be brought to 
fill acceptably a life of service in his simple sphere, however limited ; 
and in that, by constant exercise, feeble power may be raised to its 
maximum point and kept there possibly for some years."— Barr. 

' ' In idiots the weakness is general and involves the whole mind. 
The work which has lately been done on the correlation of mental 
abilities in normal individuals might tend to make us feel a little 
sceptical as to this point of view. However, as has been already 
stated, practically nothing has been done that can be pointed to as a 
basis for the affirmation or negation of such statements as those just 
quoted. 

It was then to find some reliable answers to these three questions, 
about which opinions differ so materially, that this investigation was 
undertaken. 

§ 6. Description of the Tests 

Measurements were taken of the following mental and physical 
traits : 

Mental Traits. Efficiency of perception (1 and 2) ; memory of 
unrelated ideas (4) ; memory of related ideas (3 and 14) ; ability in 
the formation of abstract ideas (5) ; ability to appreciate relation- 



DESCRIPTIONS OF TESTS 21 

ships and to control associations (6) ; perception of weight (13) ; 
motor control (11 and 12). 

Physical Traits. Height (7) ; weight (8) ; pulse (9) ; tempera- 
ture (10). 

In describing the exact nature of these measurements I shall for 
convenience divide them into those obtained from whole classes simul- 
taneously and those obtained from one individual at a time. 

Class Tests: 

1. Efficiency of perception (rate and accuracy combined) : Mark- 
ing A's. 

OYKFIUDBHTAGDAACDIXAMEPAGQZTAACVAOWLYX 
WABBTHJJANEEFAAMEAACBSVSKALLPHANRNPKAZF 
YRQAQEAXJUDFOIMWZSAUCGVAOABMAYDYAAZJDAL 
JACINEVBGAOFHARPVEJCTQZAPJLEIQWNAHRBUIAS 
SNZMWAAAWHACAXHXQAXTDPUTYGSKGRKVLGKIM 
FUOFAAKYFGTMBLYZIJAAVAUAACXDTVDACJSIUFMO 
TXWAMQEAKHAOPXZWCAIRBRZNSOQAQLMDGUSGB 
AKNAAPLPAAAHYOAEKLNVFARJAEHNPWIBAYAQRK 
UPDSHAAQGGHTAMZAQGMTPNURQNXIJEOWYCREJD 
UOLJCCAKSZAUAFERFAWAFZAWXBAAAVHAMBATAD 
KVSTVNAPLILAOXYSJUOVYIVPAAPSDNLKRQAAOJLE 
GAAQYEMPAZNTIBXGAIMRUSAWZAZWXAMXBDXAJZ 
ECNABAHGDVSVFTCLAYKUKCWAFRWHTQYAFAAAOH 

Fig. 1. 



GAAQYEMPAZNTIBXGAIMRUSAWZAZWXAMXBDXAJZ 
ECNABAHGDVSVFTCLAYKUKCWAFRWHTQYAFAAAOH 
UOLJCCAKSZAUAFERFAWAFZAWXBAAAVHAMBATAD 
KVSTVNAPLILAOXYSJUOVYIVPAAPSDNLKRQAAOJLE 
AKNAAPLPAAAHYOAEKLNVFARJAEHNPWIBAYAQRK 
UPDSHAAQGGHTAMZAQGMTPNURQNXIJEOWYCREJD 
TXWAMQEAKHAOPXZWCAIRBRZNSOQAQLMDGUSGB 
FUOFAAKYFGTMBLYZIJAAVAUAACXDTVDACJSIUFMO 
SNZMWAAAWHACAXHXQAXTDPUTYGSKGRKVLGKIM 
JACINEVBGAOFHARPVEJCTQZAPJLEIQWNAHRBUIAS 
YRQAQEAXJUDFOIMWZSAUCGVAOABMAYDYAAZJDAL 
OYKFIUDBHTAGDAACDIXAMRPAGQZTAACVAOWLYX 
WABBTHJJANEEFAAMEAACBSVSKALLPHANRNPKAZF 

Fig. 2. 



22 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

Fig. 1 was given out face downward. After I had ascertained 
that each child could recognize capital A, they were told that they 
were to mark the capital A's on the paper, working as fast as they 
could. At the word of command the papers were turned over and 
marking began. At the expiration of 60 seconds, papers were turned 
over, names written and papers collected immediately. The same 
method was followed with all similar tests. This test was repeated 
a day or two later. Fig. 2 being used for the purpose (1 &). 

2. Efficiency of perception (rate and accuracy combined) : Mark- 
ing words containing both a and t. 

A. 

Dire tengo antipatia senores; esto seria necedad, porque hombre 
vale siempre tanto como otro hombre. Todas clases hombres merito ; 
resumidas euentas, sulpa suya vizxonde; pero dire sobrina puede 
contar dote viente cinco duros menos, tengo apartado ; pardiez tamado 
trabajo atesorar-los para enriquecer estrano. Vizconde rico. Mios, 
quiero ganado sudor frente saiga f amilia ; suyo, pertenence, tendran. 
Conozco marido pueda convenirle Isabel: Carlos, sobrino. Donde 
muchacho honrado, mejor indole, juicioso, valiente ? Quieras sobrino. 
and 23 lines more of the same general sort. 

Fig. 3. 

Fig. 3 was given out face downward. The chUdT^ were told 
to mark each word containing both of the letters a and t. In two 
schools the work required was illustrated by samples put upon the 
blackboard. In the third this was not possible. Two tests were 
given in this experiment, a similar paper being given upon a subse- 
quent day {2 b). Time allowed, 2 minutes. 

3. Memory of related words, 2 tests. 

a. h. 

river school 

water teacher 

brook book 

flow desk 

ice pen 

cold read 

winter write 

snow add 

sled spell 

skate word 



DESCRIPTIONS OF TESTS 



23 



The ten words in column 'a' were read, the reading taking about 
7 seconds, and then the children were required to write all remem- 
bered. As some of the children wrote very poorly or not at all, the 
writing was done for them by myself and an assistant. Of course 
we put down exactly what was given by the children. The words in 
column 'b' were given in the same way. No time limit. 

4. Memory of unrelated words, 2 trials. 



a. 
red 
dog 
buy 
day 
never 
sing 
boy 
sick 
tree 
can 



b. 

long 

green 

arm 

inch 

dress 

run 

true 

knife 

break 

friend 



Same method as in No. 3. 

5, Ability in the formation of abstract notions. 



Noun test. 



book 

read 

one 

hat 

doll 

play 

if 

cup 

ball 



she 

desk 

black 

good 

stone 

ring 

dress 

run 

dish 



The children were told to mark every word that was the name of 
a thing. In order to make sure that the directions were understood, 
they were first asked whether or not they would mark the following 
words : book, play and school. There was no time limit for this test. 

6. Ability to appreciate relationships and to control associations, 
measured by the three following tests : 



24 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



A. Opposite test: 

I. 

bad 

inside 

slow 

short 

little 

soft 

black 

dark 

sad 

true 

dislike 

poor 

well 

sorry 

thick 

full 

peace 

few 

below 

enemy 



II. 

good 

outside 

quick 

tall 

big 

loud 

white 

light 

happy 

false 

like 

rich 

sick 

glad 

thin 

empty 

war 

many 

above 

friend 



The children were told they were to write beside each word a 
word that meant just the opposite to it, — meant 'just what the word 
you see does not mean.' Correct answers were first elicited to the 
following examples: bad, long and well. In the second test, which 
was given on a subsequent day, no samples were given. Time, 60 
seconds. 

B, Part- whole test. 



door 

pillow 

letter 

leaf 

button 



nose 

cover 

page 

engine 

glass 



The directions here were to write beside each word the name of 
that whole thing of which the given word is a part. Examples given 
were the words nose (face), button (dress, etc.), room (house, etc.). 
No time limit. 



DESCRIPTIONS OF TESTS 

C. Genus-species test. 

book dish 

tree boat 

room game 

toy ' plant 

name fish 



25 



The directions were to write down the name of some particular 
thing, the class name of which is given. The words used as examples 
were name (John, etc.), dish (cup, etc.), tree (oak, etc.). No time 
limit. 

Individual Tests: 

7. Height. Taken standing in their shoes. 

8. Weight. Taken in ordinary clothing. 

9. Pulse. 

10. Temperature. Taken at the mouth before and after the fol- 
lowing series of tests. 

11. Accuracy of movement. , 




Fig. 4. Maze Test. 



The children were told to draw a line between the two lines of 
the maze in Fig. 4 without touching either and to work as fast as 
they could. The lines were 2 mm. apart, the entire maze being 
125 mm. by 106 mm. Two tests were given for a time limit for each 
of 2 minutes. 

12. Test of form perception and rate of movement. 

A board 42.5 cm. by 30.5 cm. and 2 cm. thick had holes of the 
shapes shown in Fig, 5 cut in it to a depth of 8 mm. Blocks pro- 
vided with convenient handles and fitting snugly into these holes were 
placed beside the board. The child was told to fit each block into 



26 P8TCE0L0GT OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

its own proper hole as fast as possible, after having watched it done 
once. A second trial was allowed after a considerable interval. The 
time taken was noted in seconds. 

O A ^ 



O 




O 



o 



D 



Fig. 5. The Block Test. 



13. Test of perception of weight. 

a. A wooden box containing shot and weighing 100 gms. was 
taken as the standard and the child was told to fill a similar empty- 
box witb shot until the two boxes weighed alike. Two trials were 
made. 

h. In the other part of this test the second box was filled with 
shot and the child was required to take out shot until the weight of 
the two were equal. Here also two trials were given. 

14. Semilogical memory. Tested by giving the following simple 
dictations : 

a. I have one head, two eyes, two hands and ten fingers. 

h. I sit in my seat. I read from a book. I write with a pencil. 

c. One and two are three. Three and four are seven. Five and 
six are more than ten. 

d. In the morning I go to school. After school I play. At night 
I go to bed. 

Each of the four dictations was read slowly once and after each 
reading the child was required to write all he could remember. 

15. The class tests numbered 5 and 6A were repeated with the 
individual children, the differences in the administration being that 
in this case there was no time limit and that each child received all 
necessary assistance as to the spelling of words, etc. 

The tests were given in the School for the Feeble-Minded at 
Waverley, Mass., the Institution for the Feeble-Minded at Lakeville, 
Conn., and in the classes for defectives in one of the New York 
public schools. The total number of children tested in any trait 



PROBABLE SOURCES OF ERROR 27 

was one hundred and fifty-seven, the majority being between eight 
and sixteen years of age. 

The class tests were given to all the 'school cases' in the institu- 
tions save those in the kindergarten, that is, to all those children who 
were considered bright enough to gain any good from definite in- 
struction and so were sent to the school of the institution. From 
among these 'school cases' the brightest children were selected and 
were given the individual tests as well. In the New York school 
practically all the children in the special classes took both sets of 
tests. 

The tests were given in exactly the same way each time, written 
directions being memorized and repeated verbatim on each occasion 
of testing, thus eliminating possibilities of error in results due to 
differences in directions. Special care was given to this side of the 
work, as in a former test one class of children did half as well again 
as another class of equal grade because in the two classes there had 
been a slight difference in the giving out of the directions. 

§ 7. Probable Sources of Error 

Although all possible care was taken to eliminate the possibilities 
of error from the experiments (1) by selecting such tests as were 
not too far above the capabilities of the feeble-minded as to yield no 
result and yet not so far below the ability of normal children as to 
yield perfect scores, and (2) by having the conditions of the test as 
nearly alike in all cases as possible; yet there were several occur- 
rences which may be sources of error and as such should be noted. 

1. The a-t test did not always measure efficiency of perception in 
the defective children because of their inability to understand the 
directions. Out of 68 feeble-minded children, 28, or 41 per cent., 
misunderstood the directions and either marked the words containing 
either a or t, or marked the letters a and t. Among 159 normal 
children under twelve years of age only 13, or roughly 8 per cent., 
misunderstood. Of course the fact that the defective children failed 
to do the test as required tells us something about their general men- 
tality and ability to understand simple directions, but as a test of 
efficiency of perception I consider it too subject to ambiguity to be 
of general service. 

2. Because of physical deformities and lack of training many of 
the children wrote very slowly and laboriously and some could not 
write legibly at all, so that often the writing had to be done for 
them. In the tests for memory of words and the dictation, this fact 
offers a source of error, for the child who received assistance first 
had of course a very much greater chance of remembering more and 



28 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

remembering correctly than the one reached second or third. This 
difficulty was partially obviated by the fact that we did not assist 
the same child first every time. As there were four sets of words in 
the memory test and four simple dictations we had the opportunity 
of scattering the help so that the result is as fair as possible. 

3. Another source of error may rest in the difficulty that was 
found in the 6th test in making the word 'opposite' clear to the 
children. In the class tests only the directions noted above were 
given, but when the same test was given to the individual chil- 
dren it was often found necessary to say, 'If he isn't sick, what 
is he?' 'This is long, another might be what?' etc., in order to gain 
any understanding of the test. It might be claimed that this was 
not fair, but as the same method was followed with all the children 
tested, both normal and abnormal, the results are not vitiated. The 
test in this case was of the ability to appreciate relationships and 
control associates, not of ability to understand directions, and if the 
directions could be made clear by any means it was legitimate to 
adopt those means. A comparison of the same test given in class 
when no such assistance was given with the one given to the children 
individually, proves that a great part of the deficiency in the first 
was due to simply a lack of understanding of the directions. 

4. In several instances the temperature as recorded is not reliable 
(all such cases have, therefore, been marked with an asterisk). This 
probable error is due to the fact that those children in the case of 
whom the doubt is felt, were mouth breathers and consequently were 
not able to keep their mouths closed during the two minutes of the 
taking of the temperature. In one or two cases the children suc- 
ceeded much better when the temperature was again taken at the 
close of the hour. 

So far as I am aware these are the only noteworthy sources of 
error. No one of them is large enough to vitiate the results in any 
way, but in these particulars the administration of the tests might 
be improved. 

§ 8. Actual Marks gained ly the Defectives in the Different Tests 

The actual results from these tests, i. e., the marks gained by 
each child in each measurement, are given in Tables I. to V. in- 
clusive.^ Figures in italics represent records of boys, and the others 
represent girls. An 'F' in any record means that the individual 
failed in the test owing to inability to understand the requirements 

^The tests were all graded by the same person, who followed a definite 
standard for the correctness or incorrectness of the results of ^ny measurement. 
The keys used may be seen in Section 19. 



MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 29 

or for some other reason. An F may mean a blank paper, or it may 
mean that the whole thing was done incorrectly. For instance, in 
the a-t test any child who marked all the individual 'a's' and 't's' 
instead of the words containing the letters a and t was marked F. 
A few words of explanation will serve to make the tables clear. 

Table I. The first column designates each individual by a num- 
ber—each child retaining the same number throughout the tables, so 
that the dropping of a number means that that person did not take 
those tests. The second column states the individual's age in years 
and months. An interrogation point means that only the year and 
not the month of birth could be ascertained. The third column 
gives the height of the children in centimeters. The fourth column 
gives the weight— that of boys being given in kilograms and that of 
the girls in pounds. The fifth column gives the number of A's 
marked in sixty seconds in test la and the sixth column the number 
marked in the same time in test 1&. The seventh and eighth columns 
give the number of words containing a and t marked in two minutes 
in tests 2a and 2& respectively. No. 20 's record reads : age 13 years 
1 month, height 144 cm., weight 95.4 lbs. First A test marked 35, 
second A test marked 50, failed in both a-t tests. 

Table II. The first column gives the number of each child. The 
second column gives the number of nouns marked correctly, and the 
third column the number of mistakes made in test 5. The fourth 
and sixth columns state the number of words remembered in tests 
4a and 4&, and the fifth and seventh columns state the number of 
words put down as remembered which had not been read in those 
tests. The eighth and tenth, the ninth and eleventh columns show 
the same for tests 3a and 3&. 

Table III, The first column— as before. The second column 
shows the number of words to which an 'opposite' was correctly 
written in test 6AI., and the third column the number of incorrect 
'opposites' written in the same test. The fourth and fifth columns 
show the same results for test 6AII. The sixth column gives the 
number of correctly named particulars which were written after the 
class names in test 6C, and the seventh column the number incor- 
rectly named. The eighth and ninth columns state the same results 
for the part-whole test, number 6B. 

Table IV. The first column— as before. The second column 
states the pulse rate for one minute. The third and fourth columns 
respectively state the child's temperature in degrees and tenths of a 
degree, taken before and after an hour's mental work. The fifth 
and sixth columns state the number of seconds taken by the child in 
two trials in putting the blocks in their places in test 12. The last 



30 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

four columns tell the number of shot too many or too few, as indi- 
cated by the signs, put into the box in four successive trials in test 13. 

Table V. The first column— as before. The second and fourth 
columns indicate the number of units of amount covered in two trials 
with test 11. The third and fifth columns show the number of 
touches made by the children in those trials. The sixth, seventli, 
eighth and ninth columns show the results of tests 6AI. and 5 when 
repeated with the individual children and without a time limit. 
The last four columns state the gradings received in the four dicta- 
tions given in test 14. 

Note.— 'Nos. 51, 80, 82 and 94 were considered to be moral idiots 
and their records may be found at the end of each table. These 
records have not been used in my results, for as there is some dif- 
ference of opinion as to whether these idiots are intellectually as 
well as morally defective, it might be maintained that they are on a 
different intellectual level from the rest of the defectives. 



No. 


Age. 
yrs. m. 


1 


12 


2 


2 


10 


1 


3 


9 


4 


4 


8 


5 


5 


9 


11 


6 


12 


11 


7 


14 


5 


8 


9 


5 


9 


9 


5 


10 


12 


5 


11 


8 


5 


12 


11 


8 


13 


8 


11 


14 


8 


2 


15 


10 


3 


16 


9 


10 


17 


8 


5 


18 


12 


10 


19 


9 


6 


20 


13 


1 


21 


11 


10 


22 


7 


11 


23 


12 


7 


24 


12 


6 


25 


11 


4 


26 


10 





27 


11 


7 


28 


9 








TABLE I. 






Ht. 
cm. 


wt. 


A. 

1st. 


A. 
2nd. 


150 


75.0 


34 


44 


115 


69.9 


8 


26 


112 


43.7 


24 


36 


111 


46.6 






118 


45.5 






128 


59.1 






143 


77.6 






122 


52.1 






125 


63.3 






154 


81.6 


31 


45 


127 


59.1 


24 


30 


122 


47.0 


F 


F 


127 


57.6 


29 


40 


120 


52.5 


19 


30 


142 


89.0 


30 


48 


117 


53.0 






117 


51.2 


24 


40 


146 


92.3 


47 


45 


129 


67.7 






144 


95.4 


35 


50 


142 


73.7 


19 


27 


114 


47.7 






141 


86.6 


43 


58 


141 


69.7 


37 


48 


137 


71.9 


32 


43 


124 


57.8 


38 


44 


135 


72.8 






121 


52.5 


21 


28 



a-t. 
1st. 


a-t. 
2nd. 


10 


6 


2 


3 


16 


6 



12 


7 


9 


2 


F 


F 


10 


7 


10 


6 


18 


F 


10 


7 


10 


9 


F 


F 


8 


6 


19 


9 


8 


4 


10 


9 


12 


8 



MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 31 



No. 
29 


Age 
yrs. 

12 


m. 



30 


11 


2 


31 


8 


9 


32 


8 


10 


33 


8 


2 


34 


12 


1 


35 


12 


8 


36 


12 


5 


37 


11 


2 


38 


13 





39 


10 


10 


40 


8 


7 


41 


12 





42 
43 


11 
20 




9 


44 


14 





45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 


22 
11 
13 
15 
17 
22 







? 

1 


52 


21 


9 


53 


14 





54 
55 


14 
10 




? 


56 


13 





57 


14 





58 


19 


? 


59 


16 





6$ 


29 





61 


16 





62 


18 


1 


63 


13 


4 


64 


12 


11 


65 


12 


9 


66 
67 


14 

12 


4 
1 


68 


16 


3 


69 


14 





70 


15 


1 


71 


13 


11 


72 


15 


2 


73 

74 
75 


14 
11 

14 


3 

11 

3 


76 


13 


9 


77 


17 


7 


78 


17 


1 


79 


15 


2 



Ht. 


wt. 


cm. 




137 


73.0 


121 


44.0 


123 


49.7 


130 


61.8 


152 


101.0 


129 


58.7 


125 


57.1 


146 


89.7 


142 


81.4 


116 


51.7 


138 


72.8 


137 


S0.5 


136 


96.5 


138 


104.0 


163 


49.1 


115 


20.6 


145 


37.8 


m 


58.7 


151 


96.0 


171 


55.1 


1S8 


84j6 


131 


29.1 


159 


43.7 


149 


103.0 


145 


46.7 


175 


55.1 


154 


82.5 


170 


66.8 


m 


39.6 


135 


82.0 


145 


79.0 


135 


28.2 


w 


37.8 


159 


98.0 


160 


11.4 


152 


34.6 


151 


46.6 


163 


50.1 


15S 


42.8 


154 


41.0 


140 


36.1 


153 


43.S 


149 


41.6 


m 


5S.3 


154 


41.1 



A. 


A. 


1st. 


2nd. 


37 


47 


28 


43 


20 


41 


41 


42 


27 


45 


49 


56 


46 


59 


34 


48 


32 


53 


2 


F 


50 


75 


9 


29 


F 


F 


40 


58 


31 


■44 


50 


80 


F 


10 


F 


F 


SO 




75 


83 


17 


62 


n 


25 


97 


94 


46 




32 


54 


65 


75 


21 


22 


34 


44 


22 


27 


17 


20 


15 


12 


17 


34 


15 


19 


27 


39 


14 


44 


F 


32 


52 


46 


27 


27 


14 


26 


51 


50 


50 


4t 


19 




4 


26 


26 


39 


41 


38 



a-t. 


a-t. 


1st. 


2nd 


1 


5 


10 


6 


17 


9 


6 


2 


13 


6 


21 


12 


18 


7 


10 


6 


7 


4 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


10 


9 


F 


F 


8 


3 


F 


F 


F 


F 


12 




14 


11 


5 


5 


F 


F 


5 


F 


F 




F 


F 


2 


F 


F 


1 


11 


11 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


7 


4 


8 


F 


32 


4 


F 


4 


10 


12 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


5 


5 


F 


F 


F 


F 


2 




F 


F 


8 


4 


6 


F 



32 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



Na 


Age. 
yrs. m. 


Ht. 
cm. 


Wt. 


A. 

1st. 


A. 
2nd. 


a-t. 

1st. 


at. 

2nd. 


81 


12 


4 


144 


72.0 


46 


53 


21 


13 


83 


16 


1 


160 


13.3 


44 


59 


17 


12 


84 
85 


16 
13 


2 
11 


151 
119 


46.7 

22.7 


27 
28 


40 
28 


F 

F 


F 
F 


86 


13 


2 


142 


35.5 


33 


46 


17 


F 


87 
88 


14 
13 



9 


153 
138 


43.3 
70.5 


24 
29 


34 
37 


F 

4 


F 
9 


89 


13 


10 


149 


79.0 


19 


35 


8 


6 


90 


15 


1 


158 


128.0 


23 


46 


9 


F 


91 


12 


5 


136 


32.3 


33 


36 


F 


F 


92 


12 


4 


138 


70.0 


47 


44 


F 


6 


93 


16 


1 


160 


100.0 


37 


33 


2 


3 


95 


19 


11 


169 


56.9 


31 




6 




96 


16 


7 


166 


59.2 


35 




2 




97 


11 


6 


151 


51.9 


17 




9 




98 


17 


1 






32 


48 


9 


12 


99 


8 


6 


114 


44.5 


F 








100 


12 


9 


m 


30.5 


31 




2 




101 


13 


9 


152 


40.1 


26 


43 


F 


F 


102 


13 





143 


95.0 


18 








103 


20 





145 


103.0 


32 


32 


4 


8 


104 


16 


7 


156 


118.0 


25 


19 


F 


F 


105 


20 


1 


156 


123.0 


23 


32 


F 


F 


106 


13 


11 


134 


72.0 


15 








107 


19 


6 


163 


129.0 


62 


70 


11 


6 


108 
109 


12 
12 


? 



143 

142 


36.9 
40.1 


36 
17 


43 


F 

7 


F 


110 
111 


13 
15 


5 
9 


133 

145 


31.4 
80.0 


24 
18 




22 
8 




112 


13 


3 


158 


92.0 


17 


29 


3 


1 


113 


8 


3 


140 


104.0 


17 


26 


F 


F 


lU 


8 





133 


34.1 


30 




F 




115 


13 


7 


109 


24.6 


18 


25 


F 


F 


116 


19 


1 


155 


122.0 


39 


48 


2 


7 


117 


8 


3 


110 


41.0 


16 








118 


17 


4 


154 


137.0 


15 


63 


15 


F 


119 


12 





145 


42.8 


7 


11 


1 


3 


120 


16 


6 


141 


80.0 


28 


29 


11 


F 


121 


15 


3 


158 


50.6 


7 


28 


F 


F 


122 
123 


11 
12 


3 

? 


168 


49.6 


14 




2 




124 


12 


5 


152 


38.7 










125 


18 


7 


149 


84.5 


24 


43 


6 


1 


126 


6 





119 


49.0 


15 








127 


12 


11 


153 


101.0 


58 


55 


9 


4 


128 


16 


9 


166 


53.7 


34 


45 


F 


F 


129 


16 


8 


163 


112.0 


19 


46 


3 


3 


130 


19 


1 






59 


59 


F 


11 


131 


15 


2 








18 




6 


132 


19 


2 


156 


109.0 


22 


29 


6 


F 



No. 


Age 






yrs. 


m. 


1S3 


12 


1 


134 


14 


5 


135 


15 


6 


136 


17 


4 


137 


18 


4 


138 


8 





139 


16 





140 


12 





Ul 


9 


f 


142 


8 





143 


15 





144 


9 





145 


9 





146 


11 





w 


16 





148 


20 





149 


18 





150 


12 





151 


12 





152 


9 


? 


153 


9 





154 


12 





155 


8 





156 


8 





157 


10 





51 


10 





80 


15 


1 


82 


11 


9 


94 


10 






A. 

1st. 


A. 
2nd. 


10 


11 


n 


19 


38 


46 


21 


31 



a-t. 

1st. 


a-t. 
2nd. 


5 


4 


F 


F 


22 


F 


F 





MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 33 



Ht. Wt. 
cm. 

130 29.1 

139 36.1 

14s 38.7 

161 107.5 
148 105.0 

133 41-0 71 

152 53.7 

147 43.2 

116 25.1 

115 49.0 

1.52 40.1 19 
32.3 15 
37.6 26 
34.1 13 

162 47.8 

147 42.8 F 

150 101.0 

129 26.1 29 
147 35.1 

130 27. h 
118 54.0 
139 57.0 
118 44.0 
109 35.0 
132 62.5 



Moral Imbeciles 
131 30.5 79 62 15 

153 37.8 64 60 23 17 

139 30.5 37 47 F F 

143 32.1 









TABLE 


II. 










No. 




Nouns. 
E. W. 


Unrelated Words 
R. W. R. 


i. 
w. 


Memory. 


R. 


Related Words. 
W. R. W. 


1 




6 3 


6 


6 







5 


3 1 


2 


















3 




6 5.5 


2 7 


3 


6 




3 


6 19 


4 


















5 


















6 


















7 


















8 


















9 


















10 




9 .5 


6 


2 


3 




4 


10 3 


11 


















12 


















13 


3 


10 2 


4 1 


6 


1 




7 


1 3 6 



9 





6 


1.5 


9 


5 


10 





8 


4 


10 


7 


5 





F 




10 





5 





F 




7 


2 


6 





9 






F 




F 




8 


5 


10 





10 


2 


5 





F 




1.0 






4 


1 


3 


2 


6 





3 


3 


6 


1 


3 


7 


6 


3 


1 


1 


6 


4 


8 





8 





6 





6 


3 


4 





6 


5 


5 


1 



34 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

Memory. 
No. Nouns. Unrelated Words. Related Words. 

R. W. R. W. R. W. R. W. R. W. 

14 60 5051 6071 

15 

16 

17 73 7060 5061 

18 

19 

20 6 1.5 

21 F 
22 

23 10 

24 F 
25 

26 5 

27 

28 4 2 

29 13 
30 

31 F 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
J,2 
43 
44 
45 
46 

■47 

48 

49 

50 

52 F 

53 

54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 



6 


3 


5 





3 


2 


3 





4 





5 





7 





5 





8 





6 





6 





7 


3 


2 





1 


1 


F 




F 




6 





3 





5 





4 





7 


1 


5 


1 


6 





6 





8 





6 






h 





5 





2 





2 





1 





3 





F 




F 




1 









6 





7 





6 


4 


6 


2 


F 




F 




7 


1 


8 


2 



7 





4 


4 


4 





3 





6 





4 





5 


1 


4 





5 





6 





4 


2 


4 





1 


2 


i^ 




F 




F 




5 





4 





3 


1 


3 





3 





3 





4 


1 


5 





6 


1 


5 





4 
F 


1 


1 
F 


1 


4 





3 





4 


1 


1 





2 





1 





2 


5 


F 




3 


1 


3 





4 


8 


2 


9 


F 




1 


2 


7 


1 


6 


2 



MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 35 



No. 

64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

74 

75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
81 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 



90 

91 

92 

93 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

m 

115 



Nouns. 
R. W. 


F 




5 


2 


8 


3 


6 


3 


10 


2 


8 





F 




9 





S 


2 


10 





6 


1 


4 


2 


5 


5 


7 


1 


10 


4 


10 


1 


10 





6 


2 


9 


1 


5 


2 


F 




8 


2 


7 


4 


F 




10 


6 


9 


1 


F 




9 


1 


8 





10 


2 


10 


1 


6 


3 


F 




F 




7 


2 


F 




10 





F 




F 




F 




2 


2 


F 




F 




F 




9 






R. 


Unrelated Words. 
W. R. W. 


Memory. 

R. 


Related Words, 
W. R. 


W. 


5 





5 





4 


2 





4 





5 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 





1 





3 


4 





4 





4 


2 


5 


1 3 


1 


5 





6 





6 


2 





7 


1 


6 


1 


3 


3 1 


4 


3 


i 


3 


1 


7 


i 


2 


4 





5 


2 


• 2 


/ 2 


3 


8 


1 


7 


3 


3 


2 3 


2 


3 





-4 





3 


2 2 


2 


7 





5 


2 


3 


1 5 


1 






5 





2 


1 2 





3 


1 


6 





3 


2 2 


1 


7 


1 


7 





5 


3 


3 


6 





7 


2 


4 


1 4 


2 


6 





7 





5 


4 


1 


9 


1 


9 


1 


7 


3 6 


1 


3 





4 





5 


1 3 





6 





5 





4 


1 3 





6 





5 


2 


5 


2 


2 


5 





5 


1 


5 


1 2 


2 


6 





7 





5 


2 5 





6 


1 


6 


4 


3 


6 1 


3 


5 





6 





4 


1 3 


2 


5 





3 





4 


2 3 





5 





5 


2 


4 


2 5 









4 


3 


3 


2 2 






6 





7 





4 


2 


2 


2 


4 


1 


2 





4 





2 





3 


1 


4 


1 


6 


1 


3 





9 





7 


1 


7 


2 


7 





5 





-i 


4 


3 


i 


3 


4 



1 


1 


3 





3 





3 





5 





7 


1 


3 


3 


2 






36 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 

116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
128 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

m 

135 
136 
137 

138 

51 

80 

82 
H 



No. 
1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 



Nouns. 
R. W. 



10 
3 
6 
6 

F 



10 


5 


7 


2 


5 


1 


10 





10 


5 


F 




6 


5 


10 


5 


10 


2 



1 
10 1 
10 2 



Opposites 1st. 
R W. 

6.5 .5 



2.0 


1.0 


3.0 


0.0 


5.0 


1.0 


F 





Memory. 
Unrelated Words. Related Words. 

R. W. R. W. R. W. R. W. 

6060 4341 



8 





8 





3 





1 





2 





3 





1 


1 


5 






6 


2 


5 


1 


2 





2 





3 


1 


2 


1 


2 


i 


S 


1 



4 





7 





7 


2 


8 


i 


4 


1 


6 


1 


9 





6 





3 


1 


3 





6 





6 





3 





-* 


1 


h 





5 





10 





8 





6 





6 






6 





3 





5 


2 


6 


i 


6 


2 


2 


3 


8 





6 





3 





2 





4 


3 


4 


6 


2 


1 






2 


1 


i. 


1 


7 


1 


5 





4 


1 


4 


1 



Moral Imbeciles 



S 


2 





6 2 


6 


2 


6 


6 


1 


5 2 


4 


S 


TABLE 


III. 




Opposites 2nd. 
R. W. 




Genus-Species. 
R. W. 


6.5 .5 




F 


2.0 6.0 




3.0 1.0 


F 







8.0 0.0 

F 
F 



6.0 
5.0 
F 



0.0 
0.0 



6.5 


3.5 


1.0 


5.0 


F 




4.0 


1.0 



1 

2 7 2 

15 1 

3 



Part-Whole. 
R. W. 



9.0 
F 
F 
F 
F 



1.0 



.0 2.0 



F 

3.0 



2.0 







MARKS 


GAINED BY L 


)EFECT. 


IVES 




37 


No, 


Opposites 1st. 
R. W. 


Opposites 2nd. 
R. W. 


Genus- 
R. 


•Species. 
W. 


Part-Whole. 
R. W. 


17 


4.0 


1.0 


6.0 


0.0 


4.0 


2.0 


2.0 


6.0 


18 






1.0 


0.0 










19 


















20 


F 




3.0 


0.0 


F 




F 




21 


F 




F 




F 




F 




22 


















23 


11.5 


.5 


12.0 


0.0 


2.0 


6.0 


9.0 


1.0 


24 


F 




10.0 


0.0 


F 




3.5 


6.5 


25 






2.0 


1.0 










26 


2.0 


0.0 


3.0 


0.0 


F 




1.0 


2.0 


27 


















28 






F 












29 


















30 


















31 


F 




6.0 


0.0 


6.0 


1.0 


4.0 


0.0 


32 


2.5 


1.5 


5.0 


0.0 


0.0 


3.0 


2.0 


2.0 


33 


2.0 


0.0 


3.0 


0.0 


F 




3.0 


1.0 


34 


6.0 


1.0 


7.0 


1.0 


F 




3.0 


6.0 


35 


10.0 


0.0 


12.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


6.0 


0.0 


36 


















37 


















38 


F 




5.0 


1.0 


F 




F 




39 


6.3 


1.7 


4.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


10.0 


2.0 


40 


















41 


















m 


F 




F 




F 




F 




43 


















44 


3.0 


0.0 


1.0 


0.0 


6.0 


1.0 


2.0 


0.0 


45 


3.0 


0.0 


2.0 


0.0 






4.0 


0.0 


46 


F 




2.0 


0.0 


F 




F 




47 


2.0 


0.0 


2.0 


0.0 


4.0 


2.0 


F 




48 


2.0 


0.0 


2.0 


0.0 


1.0 


1.0 


3.0 


0.0 


49 


6.0 


0.0 


5.5 


.5 


k.o 


2.0 


4.0 


1.0 


50 


F 




F 




F 




F 




52 


F 




F 




F 




F 




53 


3.0 


0.0 














54 


1.5 


0.0 


1.5 


1.5 


1.0 


LO 


2.0 


0.0 


55 


F 




1.0 


0.0 


F 




F 




56 


F 




F 


- 


F 




F 




57 


F 




F 




F 




F 




58 


















59 


2.0 


0.0 


5.5 


.5 


6.0 


0.0 


5.0 


0.0 


60 


3.0 


1.0 


2.0 


2.0 


3.0 


2.0 


F 




61 


F 




F 




F 




F 




62 


9.0 


k.o 


5.5 


1.5 


1.0 


0.0 


9.5 


.5 


63 


2.0 


0.0 


1.0 


2.0 


3.0 


0.0 


6.0 


1.0 


64 


F 




3.0 


0.0 


4.0 


0.0 


9.0 


0.0 


65 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


0.0 


1.0 


0.0 


6.0 


2.0 


66 


2.0 


0.0 


F 




2.0 


0.0 


8.0 


1.0 


61 


3.0 


1.0 


3.0 


1.0 


4.5 


3.5 


8.5 


1.5 



38 


PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY 


DEFICIENT CHILDREN 




No. 


Opposites 1st. 
R. W. 


Opposites 2nd. 


Genus-Species. 
R. W. 


Part- Whole. 
R. W. 


68 


3.0 


1.0 


4.0 


2.0 


7.0 


3.0 


5.5 


4.5 


69 


3.5 


0.0 


9.5 


.5 


9.0 


1.0 


9.5 


.5 


70 


2.5 


2.5 


4.0 


0.0 


2.0 


2.0 


6.0 


2.0 


71 


F 




1.0 


2.0 


3.0 


0.0 


6.0 


3.0 


72 


5.0 


1.0 


6.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


10.0 


0.0 


73 


3.5 


.5 


3.0 


0.0 


4.5 


.5 


7.0 


1.0 


74 


Ji.O 


1.0 


2.5 


1.5 


5.5 


1.5 






75 


1.0 


0.0 


3.0 


0.0 


4.5 


.5 






76 


F 








F 








77 


2.0 


1.0 


1.0 


1.0 


2.5 


.5 


1.0 


0.0 


7S 


5.5 


1.5 


7.0 


1.0 


8.5 


1.5 


9.5 


.5 


79 


5.0 


0.0 


4.0 


6.0 


F 




8.0 


2.0 


81 


7.0 


1.0- 


9.0 


0.0 


10.0 


0.0 


9.0 


1.0 


83 


7.5 


1.0 


4.5 


1.5 


9.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


S4 


F 




3.0 


0.0 


4.0 


0.0 


5.0 


0.0 


85 


3.5 


.5 


3.5 


.5 


8.0 


0.0 






86 


2.0 


0.0 


3.0 


1.0 


2.0 


2.0 


5.0 


4.0 


87 


3.0 


0.0 


4.5 


.5 


6.0 


0.0 


9.0 


1.0 


88 


7.5 


1.0 


9.0 


2.0 


8.0 


1.0 


7.5 


2.5 


89 


1.5 


0.0 


F 




6.5 


.5 


6.0 


4.0 


90 


2.0 


.5 


2.0 


0.0 


4.5 


.5 


5.0 


1.0 


91 


2.5 


.5 


1.5 


0.0 


7.0 


2.0 


8.5 


L5 


92 


4.0 


0.0 


4.0 


0.0 


8.0 


1.0 


7.0 


1.0 


93 


1.0 


0.0 


F 




8.0 


0.0 


8.5 


1.5 


95 


9.0 


1.0 






10.0 


0.0 






96 


1.5 


.5 






6.0 


0.0 






97 


4.0 


0.0 






8.5 


1.5 






98 


9.0 


0.0 


9.0 


0.0 


9.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


99 


















100 


F 








F 








101 


F 




1.0 


0.0 


1.0 


1.0 


6.0 


2.0 


102 


















103 


1.5 


1.0 


2.0 


0.0 


5.0 


2.0 


8.5 


1.5 


104 


1.0 


0.0 


F 




5.0 


0.0 


3.0 


2.0 


105 


1.5 


0.0 


F 




6.5 


.5 


3.0 


2.0 


106 


















107 


6.0 


5.0 


7.5 


3.5 


9.5 


.5 


9.0 


0.0 


108 


2.0 




F 




2.0 


0.0 


3.0 


4.0 


109 


F 








5.0 


1.0 






110 


1.0 


1.0 














111 


F 








F 








112 


.5 


1.5 


1.5 


1.5 


4.0 


0.0 


5.0 


2.0 


113 


1.5 


0.0 


1.0 


0.0 


6.5 


.5 


6.0 


1.0 


m 


F 








8.0 


2.0 






115 


1.5 


.5 


1.0 


2.0 


3.0 


3.0 


5.0 


2.0 


116 


3.0 


.5 


3.0 


2.0 


10.0 


0.0 


6.5 


3.5 


117 


















118 


6.0 


1.5 


7.0 


2.0 


10.0 


0.0 


9.0 


1.0 


119 


F 




F 




F 




4.0 


0.0 


120 


1.5 


0.0 


1.0 


0.0 


5.0 


1.0 


6.5 


1.5 



No. 

121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

m 

135 
136 
137 

138 

51 
80 
82 
94 





MARES 


GAINi 


W BY DE 


FECTl 


VE8 


Opposites 1st. 


Opposites 2nd. 


Genus-Species, 


R. 


W. 


R. 


W. 


R. 


w. 


F 




F 




2.0 


0.0 


F 








F 




2.5 


.5 


4.0 


2.0 


4.0 


0.0 


.5 


.5 


1.5 


1.5 


7.5 


.5 


/' 




2.0 


3.0 


9.0 


1.0 


2.5 


.5 


3.0 


0.0 


3.0 


1.0 


9.0 


.5 


15.0 
F 


0.0 


10.0 


0.0 


2.5 


2.5 


2.0 


5.0 


F 




F 




F 




2.0 


0.0 


2.0 


0.0 


F 




1.0 


0.0 


9.0 


.5 


U.5 


.5 


9.0 


1.0 


3.0 


4.5 


7.0 


1.0 


8.5 


1.5 


F 








F 








Moral Imbeciles 






1.0 


0.0 


1.0 


0.0 


F 




2.5 


.5 


6.5 


2.5 


5.0 


1.0 


9.0 


1.0 


6.5 


.5 


9.0 


0.0 



39 



Part- Whole. 
R. W. 



3.0 



6.5 



4.0 



3.5 



9.0 


0.0 


8.0 


2.0 


8.0 


1.0 


10.0 


0.0 


9.0 


0.0 


4.0 


6.0 


4.0 


3.0 


5.0 


2.0 


9.5 


.5 


9.5 


.5 



1.0 


0.0 


8.0 


2.0 


5.0 


1.0 


5.0 


5.0 











TABLE 


IV. 


STo. 


Pulse. 


Temperature. 
1st. 2nd. 


Block Test. 
1st. 2nd. 
sec. sec. 


1 


108 


98.6 


99.0 


25 


23 


2 


102 






30 


23 


3 


112 


97.2 


97.8 


57 


33 


4 


96 


98.0 


98.6 


57 


48 


5 


120 


96.4 


98.2 


47 


40 


6 


72 


96.4 




95 


120 


7 


90 


96.2 




120 


140 


8 


126 


99.2 


98.2 


40 


23 


9 


96 


98.8 


98.4 


32 


45 


10 


96 


98.2 


98.8 


40 


28 


11 


114 


98.2 


96.6 


35 


34 


12 


120 






56 


61 


13 


96 


98.0 


98.8 


45 


27 


14 


108 


97.4 


98.4 


29 


27 


15 


108 


98.8 


98.6 


26 


45 


16 


80 


98.6 


98.4 


53 


35 


17 


96 


98.6 


99.0 


30 


30 


18 


102 


99.0 


98.4 


30 


50 


19 


102 


99.0 




90 


90 


20 


90 


99.0 


99.4 


21 


30 


21 


96 


97.2 


98.0 


54 


40 


22 


120 






57 


54 



1st. 



Weight Test. 

2nd. 3rd. 

shot. 



4th. 



+ 6 +2 +11 +12 
F F 

— 4 +5 +5 +4 

— 6 +1 +5 +5 



F 


F 


+ 3+2 


+ 2+11 


+ 5+5 


+ 1—4 


+ 1-1 


— 2 — 2 


+ 9+6 


+ 7+9 


F 


F 


— 3—4 


+ 8 +13 


+ 13+9 


+ 11 +11 


+ 11+7 


+ 3 +10 


+ 2+7 


+ 6 +10 


+ 12+5 


+ 2+2 


+ 16 +13 


+ 8+8 


F 


F 


— 6—7 


-1+1 


+ 2 


+ 9+13 


+ 12+9 


— 1+1 



40 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temperature. 
1st. 2nd. 


Block Test. 
l8t. 2nd. 
sec. sec. 


1st. 


Weight Test. 

2nd. 3rd. 

shot. 


4tll. 


23 


108 


96.6 


97.2 


47 


27 


+ 


2 


— 


2 


+ 10 


+ 8 


24 


96 


98.0 


99.0 


30 


28 


+ 


3 


+ 


8 


+ 12 


+ 5 


25 


90 


97.2 


96.4 


25 


25 


+ 14 


+ 


9 


+ 7 


+ 8 


26 


120 


98.6 


98.4 


18 


20 







— 


7 


+ 1 


+ 1 


27 


84 


98.4 




65 


40 




F 




] 


F 


28 


90 


99.0 


99.2 


47 


30 







+ 


7 


+ 6 


+ 6 


29 


96 






47 


25 


+ 


1 







— 7 


— 5 


30 




100.0 


99.8 


















31 


114 


99.0 


99.6 


40 






F 




P 


32 




98.4 


98.6 


















33 


96 


99.4 


99.2 


25 


18 


— 


5 


— 


2 


— 1 


— 1 


34 


108 


98.4 


99.0 


80 


32 


+ 12 


+ 


8 


+ 9 


+ 7 


35 


96 


97.6 


98.8 


37 


45 


— 


1 


+ 


6 


+ 4 


+ 4 


36 


96 


94.0 




30 


27 




F 




] 


F 


37 


108 


98.4 


100.4 


27 


25 


+ 11 


+ 


9 


+ 5 


+ 2 


38 


108 


95.4 


99.8 


40 


24 


+ 


1 


— 


4 


+ 1 





39 


120 


99.2 


99.6 


35 


32 


+ 


4 


+ 


4 


+ 8 


+ 6 


40 


72 


98.8 




36 


26 


+ 


4 


— 


1 


+ 4 


— 1 


41 


96 






28 


20 


+ 13 


+ 


6 


+ 12 


+ 12 


42 


96 


96.2 


96.8 


54 


S4 


— 


5 


— 


3 


+ 4 


+ 2 


43 


90 


98.2 




133 


82 


— 


6 








F 


44 


112 






49 


32 


+ 


3 


— 


4 


+ 4 


+ 8 


45 


90 


96.0 


94.0 


140 


79 


+ 


8 


+ 


8 


— 2 


+ 7 


46 


66 


96.4 


97.6 


31 


22 




F 




J 


F 


47 


84 


97.8 


99.2 


41 


21 


+ 


3 


+ 


9 


— 4 


+ 6 


49 


96 


98.0 


97.2 


25 


22 


— 


2 


— 


2 


+ 5 


+ 5 


50 


114 






34 


46 







— 


2 


+ 21 


+ 22 


53 


90 






43 


33 


+ 


1 


+ 


3 





+ 1 


54 


84 


96.4 


96.4 


26 


26 


+ 


2 


— 


8 


+ 3 


+ 3 


55 


84 


98.2 


98.6 


37 


25 


+ 


3 


+ 


3 


— 1 


+' 3 


56 


72 


98.6 


98.8 


63 


66 


— , 


14 


— . 


12 


+ 3 


+ 3 


58 


96 






36 


26 


+ 


7 


+ 


8 


+ 13 


+ 14 


59 


72 


97.2 


97.4 


57 


29 


— 


1 


+ 


3 


+ 2 


+ 2 


60 


78 


94.2 


95.0 


83 


88 


+ 


8 


+ 


6 


+ 9 


+ 9 


61 


78 


98.4 


98.6 


48 


31 


— 


6 


— 


3 


+ 5 


— 2 


62 


86 


98.6 


99.2 


25 


18 







— 


3 


+ 4 


+ 3 


63 


90 


98.8 


98.4 


32 


31 


+ 


4 







+ 3 


+ 2 


64 


98 


98.0 


98.2 


41 


27 












+ 18 


+ 5 


65 


87 


96.6 


98.4 


54 


33 


— 


2 


+ 


3 


+ 10 


— 1 


66 


98 


98.0 


99.0 


42 


36 


+ 


1 


+ 


8 


— 5 


— 1 


67 


86 


98.2 


98.6 


26 


28 


+ 


6 


+ 


8 


+ 14 


+ 17 


68 
























69 


76 


95.0 


96.4 


33 


37 


— 


5 







+ 8 


+ 5 


70 


69 


99.4 




53 


33 


+ 


8 


+ 


5 


+ 5 


+ 4 


71 


86 


93.8* 


98.2 


So 


19 


+ 


4 


— 


2 


+ 11 


+ 16 


72 


56 


98.4 


98.6 


■47 


28 


— 


1 


— 


3 


+ 1 


+ 5 


73 


88 


98.6 


97.0 


21 


SO 


— 


4 


— 


4 


+ 8 


+ 7 


74 


89 


99.2 


98.6 


21 




+ 


8 







+ 2 


+ 3 


75 


,66 


96.4 


98.2 


22 


15 


— 


3 


+ 


3 


+ 1 


+ 1 



MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 



41 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temperature. 
1st. 2nd. 


Block Test. 
l9t. 2nd. 
sec. sec. 


1st. 


Weight Test. 
2nd. 3rd. 
shot. 


4th. 


76 


80 


98.8 


98.6 


42 


26 


+ 2 


— 


2 


+ 8 


+ 2 


77 


15 


98.0 


99.0 


15 


15 


— 1 


— 


4 


+ 17 





78 


65 


96.2 


99.0 


35 


33 


+ 2 


— 


9 


+ 9 


+ 12 


79 


74 


98.2 


99.2 


21 


22 


+ 12 







— 2 





81 


98 


99.2 


98.8 


17 


15 


+ 4 







+ 6 


+ 1 


83 


49 


97.4 


98.6 


28 


29 


+ 4 


— 


1 


+ 4 


— 3 


84 


82 


97.8 


98.0 


41 


26 


— 1 


+ 


1 


+ 9 


+ 11 


85 


89 


98.2 


99.2 


45 


52 


+ 2 


— 


3 


+ 2 


— 1 


86 


82 


98.8 


98.0 


23 


19 


+ 5 


+ 


3 


+ 5 


+ 7 


87 


91. 


95.0* 


98.0 


40 


41 





+ 


9 


— 3 


— 1 


88 


89 


98.8 


99.2 


20 


17 


+ 3 


+ 10 


+ 16 


+ 6 


89 


98 


97.6 


98.0 


40 


29 


+ 4 


+ 


5 


+ 16 


+ 3 


90 


87 


99.2 


98.4 


33 


40 


+ 18 


+ 16 


+ 8 


+ 13 


91 


95 


99.4 


98.6 


25 


19 


+ 4 


+ 


4 


— 1 





92 


85 


98.8 


98.4 


19 


25 


+ 7 


+ 


3 


+ 7 


+ 5 


93 


96 


97.2 


98.4 


35 


31 


+ 10 


+ 


3 


+ 10 


+ 6 


123 


73 


96.4 


98.0 


46 


28 


+ 1 


— 


1 


+ 12 


+ 9 


12Jf 


81 


97.4 


98.8 


23 


24 


+ 8 


+ 


1. 


+ 9 


+ 7 


127 


84 


98.4 


98.4 


16 


16 


+ 3 


+ 


4 


+ 15 


+ 18 


139 


60 






39 


31 


— 2 


— 


2 


+ 14 


— 1 


1J,0 


90 


96.2* 




52 


54 





+ 


7 


+ 8 


+ 3 


142 


90 


99.4 




80 


68 


F 






F 


1J,3 


.90 


97.8 




61 


40 


F 






F 


m 


96 


98.2 




55 


30 


+ 11 


+ 11. 


— 5 


— 2 


lJf5 


72 


99.4 




45 


26 


— 5 


— 


2 


+ 9 


+ 9 


146 


90 


97.6 




55 


25 


+ 3 


— 


4 


+ 3 


+ 1 


W 


72 


96.2 




170 


135 


F 






F 


m 




97.4 




no 


97 


- 4 


— 


7 


+ 10 


+ 5 


149 


102 






32 


32 


+ 4 


+ 


5 








150 


102 


99.4 




60 


40 


— 3 


— 


11. 


+ 2 


+ 8 


151 


66 


98.0 




120 


85 


+ 5 


+ 


4 


+ 4 


+ 2 


152 


90 






135 


170 


F 






F 


153 


96 






F 


F 


F 






F 


154 


102 


Note. The cases 


150 


157 


P 






F 


155 


114 


marked 


* were 


F 




F 






F 


156 


84 


mouth-breathers. 


F 




F 






F 


157 


96 






36 


32 


+ 12 


+ 


4 


— 2 


— 2 








Moral Imbeciles 












51 


84 


97.6 


99.0 


31 


18 


+ 12 


+ 1.3 


+ 8 


+ 15 


80 


70 


98.0 


98.2 


19 


23 


+ 6 


+ 


/ 





+ 1 


82 


64 


98.6 


98.6 


30 


19 


- 4 


— 


3 


+ 1 


— 2 


H 


94 


98.0 


98.4 


30 


24 


— 3 


+ 


1. 


+ 2 


+ 3 



42 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 













TABLE V. 














No. 


Amt. 


Maze. 
Lst. 2nd. 
Touches. Amt. Touches. 


Opposite. 
Individual. 
R. W. 


Noun. 

Individual. 

R. W. 


1st. 


Dictation. 
2nd. 3rd. 


4th. 


1 
2 
3 


24 


47 


21 


37 


12.0 


0.0 


9 


1 


8 


12 


9 


14 


30 


94 


29 


87 


4.0 


6.0 


F 




6 


7 


15 


15 


4 


19 


53 


30 


90 






F 












5 


20 


51 


24 


66 


F 




F 




4 


3 


4 


8 


6 


4 


14 


F 




















7 


4 


10 


F 




















8 


16 


24 


14 


13 


5.0 


1.0 


6 





8 


10 


6 


14 


9 


20 


26 


30 


55 


F 




8 





9 


11 


4 


14 


10 


30 


62 


30 


58 


F 




7 


2 


3 


4 


2 


1 


11 


30 


45 


30 


66 


2.0 


2.0 


6 





4 


11 


6 


10 


12 


30 


119 


21 


82 






2 


1 










13 


30 


70 


30 


78 


7.0 


3.0 


F 




6 


6 


8 


14 


14 


27 


52 


30 


66 


10.0 


4.0 


6 





8 


11 


11 


15 


15 


16 


21 


26 


53 


F 




F 




8 


6 


6 


12 


16 


18 


37 


30 


88 


F 




P 




2 


7 


10 


14 


17 


15 


26 


20 


26 


14.0 


2.0 


9 





8 


8 


15 


12 


18 


30 


51 


23 


32 


4.0 


1.0 


3 





4 


7 


2 


10 


19 


15 


61 






















20 


30 


95 


30 


110 


6.5 


2.5 


F 




4 


7 


2 


7 


21 


13 


40 


17 


65 


3.5 


4.5 


10 


3 


7 


11 


6 


16 


22 


22 


75 


25 


89 






4 


4 










23 


21 


24 


30 


48 


16.5 


3.5 


10 





10 


11 





14 


24 


12 


9 


12 


5 


10.0 


10.0 


F 




8 


10 


11 


12 


25 


14 


14 


30 


100 


3.0 


2.0 


9 





9 


4 


10 


7 


26 


18 


5 


19 


9 


10.0 


0.0 


10 





8 


8 


17 


14 


27 


15 


46 






















28 


16 


43 


20 


56 


F 




5 


2 


4 


3 


8 


7 


29 


14 


48 






















30 


.14 


6 


22 


43 


1.0 


1.0 


3 


1 


4 


2 


6 


2 


31 


30 


123 


14 


31 


11.5 


6.5 


10 


4 


8 


6 


8 


14 


32 


24 


43 


30 


73 


14.5 


3.5 


10 





8 


10 


12 


7 


33 


19 


44 


21 


44 


6.5 


2.5 


F 




9 


6 


6 


15 


34 


21 


51 


21 


53 


11.0 


2.0 


9 


5 


9 


11 


12 


14 


35 


15 


5 


23 


18 


12.5 


5.5 


10 





7 


11 


11 


14 


36 


25 


46 






















37 


22 


44 


30 


76 


14.5 


3.5 


9 





8 


10 


8 


14 


38 


30 


98 


21 


45 


9.5 


2.5 


F 




10 


12 


11 


8 


39 


30 


59 


30 


48 


13.5 


5.5 


9 





7 


7 


10 


14 


40 






27 


96 


















41 


























42 


21 


66 


30 


123 


11.0 


1.0 


5 


1 


7 


5 


6 


U 


43 


9 


32 


9 


40 


F 




F 




F 








44 


14 


32 


19 


48 


17.5 


1.5 


10 


2 


8 


9 


7 


13 


45 


8 


38 


9 


38 


11.5 


3.5 


9 


1 


6 


10 


16 


12 


46 


9 


17 


16 


37 


3.5 


1.5 


10 


5 


8 


6 


6 


5 



MARKS GAINED BY DEFECTIVES 43 



No. 


Amt. 


Maze. 

1st. 2nd. 
Touches. Amt. Touches. 


Opposite. 
Individual. 
R. W. 


Noun. 

Individual. 

R. W. 


1st. 


Dictation 
2nd. 3rd. 


'4th. 


47 


18 


3 


20 


30 


11.5 


1.5 


9 


3 


8 


8 





8 


48 


























49 


15 


13 


10 


3 


12.5 


7.5 


9 





8 


12 


12 


12 


50 


























52 














5 


1 










53 


14 


18 


14 


22 


15.5 


3.5 


8 





8 


7 


12 


9 


54 


20 


18 


SO 


33 


12.0 


1.0 


9 





5 


6 


13 


13 


55 


12 


26 


17 


44 


12.0 


1.0 


3 


3 


6 


7 


10 


8 


56 


5 


8 


7 


4 


3.0 


,1.0 


4 





10 


6 


5 


11 


57 


























58 


12 


18 


13 


23 


13.0 


6.0 


10 





4 


5 


6 


6 


59 


7 


8 


8 


14 


12.0 


3.0 


10 





8 


6 


10 


15 


60 


27 


78 


29 


86 


10.5 


4.5 


9 


2 


8 


10 


8 


7 


61 


6 


8 


7 


9 


6.0 


1.0 


9 


3 


5 


7 


7 


16 


62 


22 


48 


21 


29 ■ 


14.0 


6.0 


10 





6 


7 


18 


15 


63 


26 


87 


30 


120 


6.5 


12.5 


10 


4 


4 


6 


6 





64 


14 


45 


19 


49 


13.0 


6.0 


10 


4 


2 


5 


12 


12 


65 


9 


23 


11 


32 


11.0 


2.0 









6 





9 


66 


12 


48 


12 


41 


8.5 


7.5 


6 


4 


2 


5 


1 


7 


67 


20 


71 


30 


122 


7.5 


7.5 


9 


3 


4 


7 


1 


14 


68 










16.0 


2.0 


9 


1 


8 


12 


14 


15 


69 


7 


12 


9 


6 


14.5 


2.5 


10 


1 


8 


10 


18 


15 


70 


19 


35 


30 


78 


8.0 


4.0 


10 


1 


5 


3 


2 


F 


71 


15 


20 


22 


29 


6.5 


13.5 


9 


4 


8 


2 


7 


13 


72 


10 


16 


13 


37 


16.0 


2.0 


9 


1 


8 


12 


14 


15 


73 


8 


16 


7 


9 


12.0 


3.0 


7 


1 


8 


9 


2 


9 


74 


19 


22 


16 


26 


6.5 


.5 


10 


1 


8 


9 


7 


14 


75 


20 


36 


u 


7 


15.0 


5.0 


10 





9 


7 





15 


76 


11 


30 


13 


28 


16.0 


3.0 


5 


2 


5 


9 


3 


16 


77 


30 


103 


30 


86 


4.0 


5.0 


F 




2 


7 





2 


78 


14 


17 


21 


27 


14.5 


5.5 


6 





8 


11 


14 


16 


79 


30 


111 


30 


93 


F 




10 


1 


3 


8 


7 


13 


81 


21 


12 


28 


25 


16.5 


3.5 


10 


1 


8 


12 


9 


14 


83 


14 


17 


16 


15 


17.0 


0.0 


10 





7 


10 


16 


15 


84 


21 


56 


23 


57 


9.0 


2.0 


8 


1 


6 


6 





11 


85 


14 


25 


22 


68 


12.5 


1.5 


11 


4 


7 


3 


3 


18 


86 


22 


40 


28 


43 


5.0 


.5 


10 


5 


6 


4 


7 


3 


87 


7 


7 


5 


11. 


13.5 


5.5 


10 


5 


9 


7 


15 


16 


88 


29 


78 


26 


60 


19.0 


0.0 


10 


3 


8 


11 


3 


10 


89 


19 


59 


25 


86 


13.0 


7.0 


F 




7 


5 





6 


90 


12 


24 


17 


38 


11.5 


2.5 


9 


3 


8 


3 


6 


12 


91 


16 


32 


30 


84 


F 




8 


1 


6 


8 


9 


6 


92 


19 


34 


20 


30 


17.0 


1.0 


10 


4 


5 


7 


6 


13 


93 


8 


22 


10 


30 


9.5 


6.5 


10 


5 


4 





6 


2 


123 


17 


69 


18 


48 


10.5 


8.5 


11 


4 


7 


7 


8 


15 



44 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Amt. 


Maze. 
1st. 2nd. 
Touches. Amt. Touches 


Opposite. 

Individual. 

R. W. 


Noun. 

Individual. 

R. W. 


Ist. 


Dictation. 
2nd. 3rd. 


4th. 


124 


16 


50 


30 


119 


11.5 


8.5 


10 


5 


7 


5 


18 


u 


127 


14 


27 


30 


99 


16.5 


3.5 


F 












142 


14 


58 


19 


87 


















143 


7 


20 


7 


22 


















m 


11 


IS 


11 


9 






2 


1 










U5 


14 


23 


20 


U 






2 


1 










U6 


8 


20 


7 


u 






F 












w 


6 


20 


6 


17 


















U8 


4 


IS 


7 


1.9 






10 


2 










149 










18.5 


.5 


7 


1 


8 


11 


16 


15 


150 


8 


25 


IS 


50 






F 












151 


7 


21 


10 


U 




























Moral Imheciles 














51 


9 


12 


U 


25 


11.5 


6.5 


10 


2 


6 


5 


6 


6 


80 


22 


26 


18 


5 


14.0 


2.0 


9 


k 


4 


6 


8 


u 


82 


n 


17 


25 


29 


17.0 


3.0 


F 




6 


9 





16 


H 


19 


28 


9 


3 


12.0 


2.0 


10 


5 


8 


10 


2 


11 



§ 9. Standard Marks Gained from Ordinary Children in the Tests 

We have now a series of exact measurements of these defectives 
in a number of traits. Of course the very fact that in some of the 
mental tests the idiots showed some ability and in others failed 
utterly to sense the situation, is of itself interesting. However, the 
main value of such measurements will lie in a comparison of the 
standing of the idiots with that reached by children in general in 
the same tests. In order to make this comparison these measure- 
ments were obtained from ordinary individuals to the number of 
several hundred. The testing was not all done by myself. Professor 
Thorndike gave tests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 ; but as he gave them in prac- 
tically the same way that I had given them to the defectives, the 
results are comparable. Tests 5, 6, 13 and 14 I gave to normal chil- 
dren myself. The standards for the physical measurements I ob- 
tained from other sources as shown later. 

In finding the central tendency for ordinary children in these 
various measurements the median was used in each case. The 
medians, with their probable errors of distribution, were obtained 
from the actual records of the children for intervals a year apart 
and the differences divided proportionally between the intervening 
eleven months, so that a scale was formed for each measurement 
showing the ability of children of any month-age in terms of median 
and probable error. In measurements of height, weight, pulse, 
memory and efficiency of perception the records of the boys and the 



MARKS GAINED BY ORDINARY CHILDREN 



45 



girls had to be kept separate because of the differences due to sex. 
Separate standards were thus made in some cases for sex as well as 
for age. But in the remainder of the tests, the ability of the two 
sexes being approximately equal, the same standard was used.^ In 
some of the measurements I could not obtain enough records from 
school children over thirteen to make the standards of median and 
probable error reliable. In those cases, as I had records from adults, 
I followed the general trend of the curve and filled in the standards 
for the ages fourteen, fifteen and sixteen. This is especially true 
of the intelligence tests. 

The standards for the various measurements are given in Tables 
VI. to XXII. inclusive. Those in italics represent the standards for 
boys and those in Roman for girls. In most cases the medians are 
given for intervals of half a year; the others may be obtained by 
interpolation. 

Standards 
TABLE VI.— Height. TABLE VII.— Weight. 



(In centimeters from the measure- 
ments of F. Boas.^) 



(Girls in pounds from Bowditeh.^ 
in kilograms from Boas.*) 



Age. 


Girls. 
Med. P. E. 


Boys. 
Med. P. E. 


7.5 


116.1 


3.4 


116.8 


3.3 


8.0 


118.9 


3.6 


119.6 


3.5 


8.5 


121.4 


3.7 


122.2 


3.6 


9.0 


123.8 


3.7 


m.8 


3.6 


9.5 


126.3 


3.8 


127.1 


3.7 


10.0 


128.9 


4.4 


129.6 


3.8 


10.5 


131.5 


4.9 


132.0 


3.9 


11.0 


134.2 


4.4 


m.i 


4.1 


11.5 


136.9 


4.0 


136.4 


4.2 


12.0 


139.8 


4.3 


138.6 


4.3 


12.5 


142.8 


4.5 


Ul.O 


4.5 


13.0 


146.0 


4.8 


U3.1 


4.8 


13.5 


148.9 


5.0 


146.3 


5.1 


14.0 


151.3 


4.7 


149.5 


5.5 


14.5 


153.6 


4.4 


152.11 


5.7 


15.0 


155.1 


4.1 


156.4 


5.7 


15.5 


156.6 


4.0 


159.9 


5.8 


IG.O 


157.4 


3.9 


162.5 


5.4 


16.5 


158.1 


3.8 


165.1 


5.1 


17.0 


158.6 


3.8 


167.1 


4.9 


17.5 


159.1 


3.8 


169.1 


4.8 


18.0 


159.2 


3.8 


170.2 


4.8 



Age. 


Girls. 
Med, P. E. 


Boj 
Med. 


•s. 
P. E. 


8.0 


49.5 


3,5 


24.0 


3.6 


8.5 


52.0 


3.5 


24.5 


3.6 


9.0 


55,0 


3.5 


25.8 


3.6 


9.5 


59.2 


3.5 


27.0 


3.6 


10.0 


62.0 


3.5 


28.8 


3.6 


10.5 


65.3 


3.6 


30.6 


3.7 


11.0 


66.5 


3.5 


31.0 


3.5 


11.5 


68,8 


3,2 


31.7 


3.3 


12.0 


73.3 


3,3 


33.1. 


3.4 


12.5 


78.3 


3.5 


34.7 


3.6 


13.0 


83.0 


4.2 


36.7 


4.3 


13.5 


88.7 


4.8 


38.8 


4.9 


14.0 


93.6 


5.0 


41.2 


5.1 


14.5 


98.4 


5.2 


43.5 


5.3 


15.0 


102.4 


5.0 


46.2 


5.4 


15.5 


106,1 


4,8 


49.0 


5.5 


16.0 


109.0 


5,1 


51.9 


5.5 


16.5 


112,0 


5,4 


54.5 


5.5 


17.0 


114.2 


5.6 


56.3 


5.7 


17.5 


115.5 


5.8 


58.2 


5.9 


18.0 


115.4 


5.8 


59.0 


5.9 



^ Report of U, S. Commissioner 
of Education for 1896-7, Vol. II., 
pp. 1541 flF. 



^ Measurements of Boston school 
children. 

^ Unpublished. 



^Educational Psychology, E, L, Thorndike, page 117, 



46 



P8YCE0L0GY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



TABLE VIII. 
Weight Test — 100 Grams. 
(Median for 9 years obtained from 
36 cases, the medians for other 
years adapted from Gil- 
bert's tests.^) 



TABLE IX.— Maze Test. 



Age. 


Boys and Girls. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


13.0 


3.0 


8.5 


12.6 


3.0 


9.0 


12.2 


3.0 


9.5 


11.7 


3.0 


10.0 


11.0 


3.0 


10.5 


10.7 


2.9 


11.0 


10.5 


2.8 


11.5 


10.0 


2.7 


12.0 


9.6 


2.6 


12.5 


8.7 


2.6 


13.0 


7.8 


2.6 


13.5 


7.9 


2.6 


14.5 


8.0 


2.6 


14.5 


8.2 


2.3 


15.0 


8.4 


1.8 


15.5 


8.4 


1.8 


16.0 


8.4 


1.8 


16.5 


7.9 


2.0 


Adults 


5.4 


1.2 



^ Yale Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 80-87. 



Girls up to 



TABLE X.— Ptjlse 

(500 cases.) 

Age 

15 

16 



Adults 
Boys up 



Adults 



to 



13 

U 
15 
16 



Med. 
95.5 
93.0 
88.0 
95.0 
88.6 
85.0 
8J,.6 
90.0 



Tempebatube. 
(434 cases.) 

Age. Med. 
Children up to 16 98.8 
Adults 98.6 



P.E. 
8.6 
8.2 
8.0 
8.i 
6.2 
8.0 
6.2 

10.0 



P.E. 

.8 

1.0 





(324 cases. 


) 




Boys and Girls. 
Amount. Touches . 




9 years. 






6-10 






11-14 


4.0 




15-18 


18.0 




19-22 


20.0 




10 and 11 years. 






6-10 


1.0 




11-14 


6.0 




15-18 


13.5 




19-22 


25.0 




12 and 13 years. 






6-10 


1.0 




11-14 


3.5 




15-18 


10.0 




19-22 


13.0 


] 


L4 and 15 years. 






6-10 


.5 




11-14 


3.0 




15-18 


8.5 




19-22 


11.5 


Adults. 






6-10 


4.5 




11-14 


2.5 




15-18 


5.5 




19-22 


4.0 




22-28 


18.0 




TABLE XI.— A 


Test. 




(900 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls. 
Med. P. E. 


Boys. 
Med. P. E. 


8.0 


30.0 4.5 


2t.O 2.1 


8.5 


31.6 4.5 


28.2 2.1 


9.0 


32.6 4.5 


28.4 2.1 


9.5 


34.0 4.6 


30.6 2.8 


10.0 


36.0 5.4 


32.3 3.2 


10.5 


38.6 6.1 


3^.7 3.6 


11.0 


41.6 6.5 


37.4 S.9 


11.5 


44.4 7.0 


39.9 4-2 


12.0 


45.9 7.3 


41.3 .J..* 


12.5 


47.4 7.5 


42.6 4-6 


13.0 


48.8 7.4 


43.9 4-5 


13.5 


50.2 7.3 


45.2 4-4 


14.0 


51.7 7.3 


46.5 44 


14.5 


53.1 7.3 


^7.7 44 


15.0 


54.1 7.3 


48.6 44 


15.5 


55.0 7.3 


49.5 44 


16.0 


56.0 7.3 


50.2 4.4 


16.5 


57.0 7.3 


51.2 44 



MARKS GAINED BY ORDINARY CHILDREN 



47 



TABLE XII.— Dictation I. 



TABLE XIII.— Dictation 2. 





(386 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


8.0 


.9 


8.5 


8.3 


.9 


9.0 


8.6 


.9 


9.5 


8.7 


.9 


10.0 


8.8 


1.0 


10.5 


8.8 


1.0 


11.0 


8.9 


.8 


11.5 


8.9 


.8 


12.0 


9.0 


1.0 


12.5 


9.1 


1.0 


13.0 


9.3 


1.0 


13.5 


9.3 


1.0 


14.0 


9.5 


1.0 


14.5 


9.6 


1.0 


15.0 


9.7 


1.0 


15.5 


9.7 


1.0 


16.0 


9.7 


1.0 


16.5 


9.7 


1.0 


Adults 


10.0 


1.0 



TABLE XIV.— Dictation 3. 
(386 cases.) 



Age. 

8.0 

8.5 

9.0 

9.5 
10.0 
10.5 
11.0 
11.5 
12.0 
12.5 
13.0 
13.5 
14.0 
14.5 
15.0 
15.5 
16.0 
16.5 
Adults 



Girls and Boys. 
Med. 

14.0 
14.4 
15.0 
14.8 
14.6 
14.6 
14.6 
14.6 
14.6 
14.8 
15.0 
15.3 
15.6 
16.0 
16.5 
16.5 
16.5 
16.5 
18.0 



P. E. 

2.2 

2.4 

2.9 

2.8 

2.7 

2.7 

2.6 

2.6 

2.6 

2.4 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

1.6 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 





(386 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


10.2 


1.1 


8.5 


10.3 


1.1 


9.0 


10.6 


.9 


9.5 


10.7 


.9 


10.0 


10.8 


.8 


10.5 


10.8 


.8 


11.0 


10.8 


.7 


11.5 


10.8 


.7 


12.0 


10.8 


.7 


12.5 


10.9 


.7 


13.0 


11.0 


.8 


13.5 


11.1 


.9 


14.0 


11.3 


1.0 


14.5 


11.4 


1.0 


15.0 


11.5 


1.0 


15.5 


11.5 


1.0 


16.0 


11.5 


1.0 


16.5 


11.5 


1.0 


Adults 


12.0 


1.0 


TABLE 


XV. — Dictation 4. 




(386 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


13.9 


1.1 


8.5 


14.0 


1.0 


9.0 


14.3 


.8 


9.5 


14.3 


.8 


10.0 


14.4 


.7 


10.5 


14.4 


.7 


11.0 


14.4 


.7 


11.5 


14.4 


.7 


12.0 


14.4 


.7 


12.5 


14.6 


.8 


13.0 


14.8 


1.0 


13.5 


15.0 


1.0 


14.0 


15.2 


1.0 


14.5 


15.3 


1.0 


15.0 


15.5 


1.0 


15.5 


15.5 


1.0 


16.0 


15.5 


1.0 


16.5 


15.5 


1.0 


Adults 


16.0 


1.0 



48 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



TABLE XVI.— Dictation Total. 
(386 cases.) 



TABLE XVII. 

Memory of Related Words. 

(288 cases.) 



Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


Age. 


Girls. 
Med. 


p. E. 


Boys. 
Med. P. E 


8.0 


11.5 


1.3 


8.0 


13.0 


1.6 


13.0 


1.9 


8.5 


11.8 


1.3 


8.5 


13.4 


1.6 


134 


1.9 


9.0 


12.1 


1.3 


9.0 


14.0 


1.7 


U.O 


2.0 


9.5 


12.1 


1.3 


9.5 


14.6 


1.8 


lU 


1.9 


10.0 


12.1 


1.3 


10.0 


15.3 


1.9 


15.0 


1.7 


10.5 


12.1 


1.3 


10.5 


15.9 


1.8 


15.0 


1.7 


11.0 


12.1 


1.2 


11.0 


16.5 


1.7 


15.0 


1.7 


11.5 


12.1 


1.2 


11.5 


16.3 


1.7 


15.1 


1.7 


12.0 


12.1 


1.2 


12.0 


16.0 


1.6 


16.^ 


1.8 


12.5 


12.3 


1.2 


12.5 


16.4 


1.6 


16.4 


1.8 


13.0 


12.5 


1.2 


13.0 


17.0 


1.5 


16.5 


1.8 


13.5 


12.7 


1.2 


13.5 


17.2 


1.5 


16.7 


L6 


14.0 


13.0 


1.2 


14.0 


17.5 


1.5 


16.9 


1.3 


14.5 


13.2 


1.1 


14.5 


17.5 


1.5 


16.9 


1.3 


15.0 


13.5 


1.0 


15.0 


17.5 


1.5 


16.9 


1.3 


15.5 


13.5 


1.0 


15.5 


17.6 


1.5 


16.9 


1.3 


16.0 


13.5 


1.0 


16.0 


17.8 


1.5 


17.0 


1.3 


16.5 


13.5 


1.0 


16.5 


17.8 


1.5 


17.0 


1.3 


Adults 


14.0 


1.0 


Adults 


17.0 


1.9 


16.5 


L5 





TABLE XVIII. 






TABLE XIX. 




Memobt of Unrelated Words. 


Part-Whole Test. 






(270 cases.) 








(504 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls. 
Med. P. E. 


Boys. 
Med. P. E. 


Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


11.5 1.3 


11.1 


1.6 


8.0 


6.5 


2.3 


8.5 


11.9 1.3 


11.6 


l.k 


8.5 


7.1 


1.8 


9.0 


12.4 1.4 


12.2 


1.7 


9.0 


7.8 


1.3 


9.5 


13.3 1.4 


12.2 


1.7 


9.5 


7.8 


1.6 


10.0 


14.4 1.4 


12.2 


1.7 


10.0 


7.8 


1.9 


10.5 


14.4 1.4 


12.3 


1,7 


10.5 


8.2 


1.5 


11.0 


14.3 1.4 


12.5 


1.8 


11.0 


8.7 


1.1 


11.5 


14.2 1.4 


12.6 


1,8 


11.5 


8.7 


1.1 


12.0 


14.0 1.5 


12.8 


1.8 


12.0 


8.7 


1.2 


12.5 


13.8 1.5 


13.1 


1.9 


12.5 


8.8 


.9 


13.0 


13.5 1.5 


13.5 


2.1 


13.0 


9.0 


.7 


13.5 


13.7 1.5 


13.6 


2.1 


13.5 


9.0 


.7 


14.0 


14.0 1.5 


13.7 


2.2 


14.0 


9.0 


.7 


14.5 


14.0 1.5 


13.7 


2.2 


14.5 


9.0 


.7 


15.0 


14.0 1.5 


13.7 


2.2 


15.0 


9.0 


.7 


15.5 


14.3 1.5 


13.8 


2.2 


15.5 


9.0 


.7 


16.0 


14.5 1.5 


U.O 


2.2 


16.0 


9.0 


.7 


16.5 


14.5 1.5 


U.O 


2.2 


16.5 


9.0 


.7 


Adults 


13.0 1.4 


12.8 


1.2 


Adults 


10.0 


.5 



MARKS GAINED BY ORDINARY CHILDREN 



49 



TABLE XX. 



Gentjs-Species Test 


'. 




(511 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


5.0 


2.0 


8.5 


5.0 


2.3 


9.0 


5.0 


2.7 


9.5 


6.0 


2.8 


10.0 


7.0 


2.9 


10.5 


8.1 


2.5 


11.0 


9.2 


1.9 


11.5 


9.2 


1.3 


12.0 


9.2 


.7 


12.5 


9.2 


.6 


13.0 


9.3 


.4 


13.5 


9.3 


.4 


14.0 


9.3 


.5 


14.5 


9.4 


.5 


15.0 


9.5 


.5 


15.5 


9.5 


.5 


16.0 


9.5 


.5 


16.5 


9.5 


.5 


Adults 


10.0 


.0 





TABLE XXI. 




Opposites Test 1. 






(605 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


7.4 


2.0 


8.5 


8.2 


2.0 


9.0 


9.0 


2.0 


9.5 


9.4 


2.4 


10.0 


9.9 


3.0 


10.5 


11.1 


3.0 


11.0 


12.5 


3.0 


11.5 


12.8 


3.0 


12.0 


13.5 


2.6 


12.5 


13.7 


2.6 


13.0 


14.0 


2.5 


13.5 


14.2 


2.4 


14.0 


14.5 


2.3 


14.5 


14.7 


2.3 


15.0 


15.0 


2.3 


15.5 


15.2 


2.3 


16.0 


15.5 


2.3 


16.5 


15.5 


2.3 


Adults 


20.0 


1.0 





TABLE XXII. 




1 


Opposites Test 2. 






(608 cases.) 




Age. 


Girls and Boys. 
Med. 


P. E. 


8.0 


8.7 


1.4 


8.5 


9.1 


1.5 


9.0 


9.5 


1.7 


9.5 


10.5 


1.9 


10.0 


11.5 


2.2 


10.5 


12.3 


2.5 


11.0 


13.1 


2.9 


11.5 


13.8 


3.2 


12.0 


14.7 


3.6 


12.5 


15.4 


3.0 


13.0 


16.4 


2.4 


13.5 


17.0 


2.2 


14.0 


17.8 


2.0 


14.5 


18.1 


2.0 


15.0 


18.5 


2.0 


15.5 


18.7 


2.0 


16.0 


19.0 


2.0 


16.5 


19.0 


2.0 


Aduli 


bs 20.0 


1.0 



TABLE XXIII. 





a- 


t Test. 








(900 cases.) 






Age. 


Girls. 
Med. P. E. 


Boys. 
Med. P. E. 


8.0 


11.8 


1.8 


10.0 


1.6 


8.5 


12.0 


1.8 


11.0 


1.6 


9.0 


12.3 


1.9 


11.3 


1.7 


9.5 


12.5 


2.0 


11.5 


1.8 


10.0 


12.8 


2.2 


11.8 


2.0 


10.5 


13.2 


2.4 


12.1 


2.2 


11.0 


13.9 


2.5 


12.7 


2.3 


11.5 


14.5 


2.7 


13.3 


2.4 


12.0 


14.9 


2.9 


13.7 


2.5 


12.5 


15.4 


3.0 


14.1 


2.7 


13.0 


16.1 


3.0 


14.8 


2.7 


13.5 


17.1 


3.0 


15.7 


2.7 


14.0 


17.9 


3.0 


16.4 


2.7 


14.5 


18.5 


3.0 


17.0 


2.7 


15.0 


18.7 


3.0 


17.2 


2.7 


15.5 


19.0 


3.0 


17.4 


2.7 


16.0 


19.3 


3.0 


17.7 


2.7 


16.5 


19.5 


3.0 


18.0 


2.7 



60 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

§ 10. MetJiod of Comparing Defective Children with Ordinary 

Children 

We now have two series of grades in the same measurements, one 
set from mentally defective children and the other from ordinary- 
school children. The usual method of comparing such results is to 
compare the records of one set of individuals with the central tend- 
ency of those of the others of the same age and sex. But in this case 
there were not enough defectives of any age to make the results 
gained from such treatment of any value, consequently a different 
method had to be adopted. The method used in dealing with the 
majority of the measurements was one which enabled me to compare 
the records of all of the defectives with those of all the ordinary 
children without restriction as to age or sex. Another very decided 
advantage is the fact that the units of grading are identical through- 
out all the measurements, as will be evident from the following 
description. 

The difference between the record of each defective in any test 
and the median for an ordinary child of the same age and sex was 
found. This difference was then transmuted into positive or nega- 
tive multiples of the probable error as the case required. For in- 
stance, referring to Table III., No. 23, whose age is 12 years 7 months, 
has a mark of 12 in the second opposite test. Table XXII. gives the 
median for that test at that age to be 15.4 -f- (the actual figures by 
interpolation being 15.6) ; the difference therefore is — 3.6. The 
probable error in the standard for that age is < 3.0 (2.9), then 

— 3.6 is — 1.249 times the probable error. Hence individual 23 
is 1.25 times the probable error below the grade reached by 50 per 
cent, of ordinary children of the same age and sex in this test. By 
thus transmuting the difference between the grading received by 
defectives and ordinary children respectively in every test into mul- 
tiples of the probable error of the appropriate age and sex I can 
compare the records of the 150 defectives tested with the 500 or 600 
ordinary children, just as if I had 150 idiots and 600 school children 
all of the same age and sex. Not only by this method can I consider 
all my cases together, but each test is, so far as is possible, com- 
parable with every other, irrespective of whether the trait examined 
is physical or mental. This, so far as I know, has not yet been 
done. For instance, a mark of in height, —2.5 in a memory test, 

— 4 in the part-whole test and + 1.19 in the measure of percep- 
tion, means that the individual was just at the median of children in 
general as to height ; nearly twice as far below the median in the test 
of intelligence as in the memory test ; while in the test of perception 



METHOD OF COMPARING 51 

he was above the central tendency for normals. This method, then, 
provides a measure by which we can tell not only how far the idiots 
are below school children in the various traits tested, but how much 
farther below they are in one mental trait than in another and 
whether they are equally deficient in physical and mental traits. 

As a final mark, then, each child has a grade, in terms of the 
probable error above or below the median for normal children, show- 
ing the extent of his ability in each measurement. These figures 
are given in Tables XXVIII. to XXXII. inclusive. In Table 
XXVIII, the record for No. 33 reads : age, 8 years, 2 months ; height, 
1.30 P. E. above that of children of that age in general; weight, 
.15 P. E. below normal ; ability in the A test, 2.31 P. E. above that 
of ordinary children; ability in the a-t test, 3.42 P. E. below normal. 

In tests 5, 11 and 12 the results do not appear in this form, and 
consequently they must be considered separately. The reason for 
this difference in treatment is different in each case. In test 5 the 
median for the ordinary child of eight years old was 10 or perfect, 
in which case there was no opportunity of showing improvement due 
to increase in age, and therefore the results gained by the use of the 
method mentioned above would not mean the same in this test as in 
the others, for the ability of children over eight should presumably 
be represented by a higher mark than 10. In this test, therefore, I 
simply computed the percentage of defectives for each age that fell 
below 10, or the perfect mark, and then did the same for school 
children in general. The result records the percentage of defectives 
that fall below a certain grade and the percentage of ordinary chil- 
dren of the same age that fall below that grade in the same test. 
Table XXIV. states the results of the class tests, and Table XXV. 
the results of the same test repeated with single individuals, the 
same standard being used for comparison in each case. 









TABLE XXIV. 








Per Cent, of Defectives 
Below Grade of 10. 




Per Cent, of Ordinary Children 
Below Grade of 10. 


8 years 


old 




88% 


(9 


cases) 




33.3% 


9 " 






100 


(4 


cases) 




30 , 


10 " 






75 


(4 


cases ) 




21 


11 " 






66.6 


(6 


cases) 




14 


12 " 






67 


(19 


cases) 




14 


13 " 






100 


(16 


cases) 




10 


14 " 






80 


(10 


cases) 




1 


15 " 






70 


(10 


cases) 






Adults 






66.6 


(36 


cases) 







52 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 







TABLE XXV. 








Per Cent. 


of Defectives Below Grade of 10. 




8 years 


old 


81% 


(11 


cases ) 


9 " 


« 


100 


(8 


cases ) 


10 " 


« 


50 


(6 


cases) 


11 " 


« 


70 


(10 


cases) 


12 " 


(( 


60 


(15 


cases ) 


13 " 


It 


60 


(10 


cases) 


14 " 


K 


42 


(7 


cases) 


15 " 


(( 


66 


(6 


cases) 


Adults 




70 


(20 


cases) 



This particular measurement is one of actual knowledge, for most 
children of eight have had training in picking out 'names of things' 
and in 'naming objects,' and of course children of nine and ten have 
begun the study of grammar, so that their training has been very- 
much more definite in this line than that of the idiots. We therefore 
should expect to find idiots below normal children in this measure- 
ment simply from the fact of the dissimilarity of training. In fact 
it should surprise us that the majority do as well as they do and that 
some of the 'idiots' reach the same grade as the ordinary child. 

As test 11 was designed to test chiefly motor control, the number 
of touches made in doing any number of units is the important 
factor. The comparisons are in terms of the percentage of defectives 
making more touches in covering a certain number of units of 
amount than the median number made by ordinary children of the 
same age in covering the same amount. The medians used for this 
comparison are given in Table IX. As may be seen from the stand- 
ard, those children who finished before time were not taken into 
account, for we do not know their maximum ability. The results 
are given in Table XXVI., the same standard being used in the two 
trials. 

TABLE XXVI. 
Restilts of the Maze Test. 



1st Trial. 

Per Cent, of Defectives Falling Below the 

Median for Ordinary Children. 



2nd Trial. 

Per Cent, of Defectives Falling Below the 

Median for Ordinary Children. 



9 years 


100% 


(5 cases) 


100% 


(3 cases) 


10 and 11 years 


90 


(11 cases) 


87 


(8 cases) 


12 and 13 years 


81 


(24 cases) 


100 


(17 cases) 


14 and 15 years 


100 


(11 cases) 


88 


(9 cases) 


Adults 


100 


(12 cases) 


100 


(12 cases) 



These results seem to confirm Johnson 's statement that the feeble- 
minded are 'slightly inferior' to ordinary children in their motor 
control. One might feel that the figures show more than a slight 



METHOD OF COMPARING 53 

inferiority ; however, we must bear in mind that two factors actually 
enter into the result, amount and errors, and that combination 
always complicates matters. The idiots did more on the average than 
the ordinary child and it may be that had children in general done 
as much, that is, had there been as many school children taking as 
high a rate of speed as that adopted by the defectives, the difference 
in control might not have been so marked. 

Of course this lack of muscular control on the part of the de- 
fectives is partly accounted for by the diseased condition of some of 
them. Some were paralytic and had not full control of their hands, 
and others had very poor eyesight and so were hampered in their 
performance of the test in a way that ordinary children were not. 
However, the conclusion seems to stand that the idiots have less mus- 
cular control than other children of the same age. Just how much 
can not be stated with the exactitude possible in the tests where com- 
plete standards were at hand. 

In the block test (number 12) I have records of nine-year-old 
children and adults only and so could not follow my usual method. 
Consequently I have compared the records of the idiots of various 
ages with the median for nine-year-olds, and stated my results in 
terms of the percentage of idiots who fall below the standard reached 
by 50 per cent, of ordinary nine-year-olds. The median time for the 
school children in the first trial with this test was 30 seconds ; in the 
second trial it was 24 seconds. The results are given in Table XXVII. 







TABLE 


XXVII. 












Block Test. 








1st Trial. 










2n(i Trial. 


8 years 


70% 


(10 


cases ) 




87% 


(8 cases) 


9 « 


100 


(11 


cases ) 




90 


(11 cases) 


10 " 


50 


(6 


cases ) 




66.6 


(6 cases) 


11 " 


66.6 


(9 


cases ) 




87 


(8 cases) 


12 " 


60 


(23 


cases ) 




73 


(23 cases) 


13 " 


72 


(11 


cases ) 




45 


(11 cases) 


14 " 


71 


(7 


cases) 




87 


(7 cases) 


15 " 


80 


(5 


cases) 




80 


(5 eases) 


16 " 


83 


(6 


cases ) 




100 


(5 eases) 


Adults 


76 


(13 


cases ) 




78 


(13 cases) 


All ages 


70 








78 





These figures show that in the ability or rather in the combination 
of abilities measured by this test the majority of the idiots are much 
worse than ordinary children. In only two instances do the de- 
fectives of any age equal or exceed the median for nine-year-olds — 
the ten-year-old defectives 50 per cent, below, and those thirteen 



54 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

years old, 45 per cent, below. This test seems to me to measure to 
a certain extent the ability of dealing quickly and well with a new 
situation— to measure, in a way at least, common sense. Some of the 
feeble-minded showed a lack of ability in dealing with the situation 
to an extent that was not even approached by the school children. 
Some of them picked up one block after another and tried it in the 
same hole, often picking up the same block time after time; others 
would hold on to one block and screw and push and try their best 
to force it into the hole. Three of them failed utterly in putting the 
blocks into their proper places. And yet this lack of ability was not 
true of all— in several instances the defectives excelled the ordinary 
children in both time and common sense. 

It may be that the case against the idiots is not so bad as it seems 
to be, for it is probable that the amount of improvement between 
the first and second trials is greater in their case than with children 
at large. As yet no definite statement can be made, as the compara- 
tive amount of improvement has not been worked out. 

§ 11. Tables Showing the Results of the Comparison of Defective 
Children with Ordinary Children 



No. Age. Ht. Wt. A. a-t. 

yr. m. Ist. Ist. 

1 12 2 +2.11 +1.14 —2.11 —1.79 

2 10 1 —5.40 +2.12 —4.82 —4.95 

3 9 4 —3.86 —1.01 —2.09 +2.32 

4 8 5 —2.70 —1.43 

5 9 11 —2.33 —4.61 

6 12 11 —3.63 —5.65 

7 14 5 —2.34 —4.04 

8 9 5 —1.26 —1.69 —4.60 —2.75 

9 9 5 —1.00 +1.52 

10 12 5 +2.61 +1.24 —2.16 —1.10 

11 8 5 + .22 +2.15 —1.64 —1.67 

12 11 8 —3.61 —6.88 F F 

13 8 11 + .97 + .89 — .76 —1.21 

14 8 2 + .05 + .66 —2.58 —1.11 

15 10 3 +2.63 +7.07 —1.26 —2.47 

16 9 10 —2.62 —2.32 

17 8 5 — .50 — .12 —1.64 —1.11 

18 12 10 + .24 +2.52 — .17 —1.96 

19 9 6 + .71 +2.43 

20 13 1 —1.27 +2.71 —1.90 F 

21 11 10 + .76 + .67 —3.67 —2.39 

22 7 11 —1.22 — .38 

23 12 7 — .72 —2.12 — .61 +1.13 

24 12 6 — .40 —3.26 —1.39 —2.46 



TABLES SHOWING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 55 



No. 


Age 

yr. ; 


m. 


Ht. 


wt. 


A. 

1st. 


a-t. 
1st. 


25 


11 


4 


+ .25 


+ 1.25 


— 1.68 


— 1.65 


26 


10 





— 1.11 


— 1.43 


+ .25 


— .36 


27 


11 


7 


— .59 


— 1.13 






28 


9 





"— .76 


— .72 


— 2.58 


— 1.74 


29 


12 





— .65 


— .11 


— 4.92 


— 4.97 


30 


11 


2 






— .83 


— 5.24 


31 


8 


9 


— .65 


— 2.72 


— .89 


— 1.22 


32 


8 ] 


[0 






— 1.31 


+ 2.89 


33 


8 


2 


+ 1.30 


— .15 


+ 2.31 


— 3.42 


34 


12 


1 


— 2.40 


— 3.59 


— 2.32 


— .69 


35 


12 


8 


+ 1.37 


+ 5.49 


+ .15 


+ 1.76 


36 


12 


5 


— 2.96 


— 5.51 


F 




37 


11 


2 


— 2.35 


— 2.95 






38 


13 





0.00 


+ 1.61 


— .38 


+ .63 


39 


10 


10 


+ 1.89 


— 4.38 


— 1.03 


— 1.44 


40 


8 


7 


— 1.49 


— .29 


— 4.62 


F 


41 


12 





— .42 


— .16 


— 2.18 


— 4.61 


42 


11 





+ .93 


— .15 


— 1.39 


— 2.48 


43 


20 


? 










44 


14 





— 2.64 


+ 2.09 


— .23 


— 5.63 


45 


22 













46 


11 





-f64 


— 2.98 


F 


F 


4y 


13 





+ .31 


+ .26 


— .87 


— 1.78 


48 


15 









— 4.01 


F 


49 


17 


f 


— .63 


+ .43 






50 


22 


2 


+ .24 








52 


21 


4 






F 


F 


53 


20 













54 


u 





— .11 


— 2.30 


+ 6.48 


— .89 


55 


10 


2 


+ .37 


— .09 


— 4.78 


— 3.40 


56 


13 





+ 3.30 


+ 2.43 


-4.42 


F 


57 


14 











F 


58 


19 


1 








59 


16 





— 3.30 


— .95 




F 


60 


29 













61 


16 





— .85 




— 2.23 


F 


62 


18 


1 


1+ .17 


+ 2.12 






63 


13 


4 


— .18 


+ .38 


— 5.07 


F 


64 


12 


11 


— 1.89 


— .05 


— 4.26 


F 


65 


12 


9 


+ .51 


+ 1.48 


— 4.35 


F 


66 


U 


4 


— 2.41 


— 2.45 


— 6.89 


— 4.75 


67 


12 


1 


+ 2.46 


+ 1.57 


— 5.89 


F 


68 


16 


3 


+ .06 


— 2.40 


— 4.05 


— 5.10 


69 


14 





+ 2.32 


+ 5.38 


— 5.17 


— 4.96 


70 


15 


1 


— .37 


- <.76 






71 


13 11 


+ 1.01 


:4 1.27 


+ 1.21 


F 


72 


15 


2 


+ 1.74 


4 t.oi 


+ It.98 


F 


73 


U 


3 


+ 2.04 


+ .54 


— 7.54 


— 4.94 


74 


11 


11 


+ 3.42 


-ri342 


+ 2.12 


F 


75 


14 


3 


— 1.33 


— .80 


+ .66 


F 



i. 



■« 



56 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Age. 


Ht. 


wt. 


A. 


art. 




yr. m. 






1st. 


Ist. 


76 


13 9 


+ 1.74 


+ 1.20 


— 6.11 


— 5.26 


77 


17 7 


— 4.76 


— .88 






78 


17 1 


— .98 


— .58 






79 


15 2 


+ .35 


— .63 


— 1.89 


— 4.75 


81 


12 4 


+ 1.24 


+ .16 


— .12 


+ 1.93 


83 


16 1 


4- .32 


+ 4.61 


— 1.68 


— .76 


84 


16 2 


— 1.72 


— .60 


— 5.32 


F 


85 


13 11 


— 5.31 


— 3.25 


— 4.16 


F 


86 


13 2 


■+ .03 


+ .03 


— 2.54 


+ .67 


87 


14 


+ 2.44 


+ .92 


+ 5.12 


F 


88 


13 9 


— 1.76 


— 3.34 


— 3.11 


— 4.50 


89 


13 10 


+ .21 


— 1.61 


— 4.42 


— 3.26 


90 


15 1 


1+ 1.14 


+ 5.58 


— 2.92 


— 3.26 


91 


12 5 


— .28 


— .18 


— 2.09 


2^ 


92 


12 4 


+ .02 


— .47 


+ .01 


F 


93 


16 1 


+ .82 


— 1.38 


— 2.64 


— 5.76 


95 


19 11 










96 


16 7 


- .24 


— .80 


— 3.73 


— 6.49 


97 


n 6 


— 2.84 


— .83 






98 


17 1 










99 


8 6 


— 1.46 


— 1.55 






100 


12 9 


— 3.57 


— .98 


— 2.49 


— 4.63 


101 


13 9 


+ 1.50 


+ .52 


— 4.51 


F 


102 


13 


— .96 


— 2.81 


— 4.71 




103 


20 










104 


16 7 


— 1.08 


+ .99 


— 4.53 


F 


105 


20 1 










106 


13 11 


— 3.92 


— 4.16 






107 


19 6 










108 


12 ? 


+ .38 


+ 1.58 


-1.14 


F 


109 


12 


+ .33 


+ 2.06 


— 5.53 


— 2.68 


110 


13 5 


— 2.19 


- .84 


— 4.78 


+ 2.41 


111 


15 9 


— 3.47 


— 5.62 


— 5.18 


— 4.56 


112 


13 3 


+ 1.82 


+ 1.45 


— 4.94 


— 4.56 


113 


8 3 


1+ 6.22 


+ 18.11 


— 3.09 


F 


m 


8 


+ 3.81 


+ 2.78 






115 


13 7 


— 6.96 


— 2.78 


— 6.09 


F 


116 


19 1 










117 


8 3 


— 1.79 


— 2.75 


— 3.32 




118 


17 4 


— 1.61 


— 3.97 






119 


12 


;+ 2.11 


+ 3.26 


— 7.81 


— 5.08 


120 


16 6 


— 4.11 


— 5.79 


— 4.01 


— 2.83 


121 


15 3 


+ .74 


+ .82 


. — 9.57 


F 


122 


17 3 


+ .41 


— 1.29 






123 


12 ? 










124 


12 5 


+ 3.14 


+ 1.71 






125 


18 7 


— 2.69 


— 5.32 






126 


6 










127 


12 11 


+ 2.52 


+ 6.95 


+ 1.29 


— 2.36 


128 


16 9 


.+ .57 


+ .06 


— 4-05 


F 



TABLES SHOWINa RESULTS OF COMPARISON 



57 



No. 


Age. 
yr. m. 


Ht. 


Wt. 


A. 

1st. 


a-t. 
1st. 


129 


16 


8 


+ 1.64 


+ .39 


— 5.28 


— 5.50 


130 


19 


1 










131 


15 


2 










132 


19 


10 










133 


12 


1 


— 1.41 


— .85 






13^ 


14 


5 


— 1.68 


— .93 


— 6.96 


F 


135 


15 


6 


— 1.39 


— 1.39 


— 2.62 


+ 1.71 


136 


11 


4 


+ .74 


— 1.13 






137 


18 


4 


— 3.51 


— 1.78 






138 


8 





+ 3.81 


-+ 2.S0 






139 


16 





— 1.69 


+ .33 






UO 


12 





+ 1.65 


+ 2.98 






m 


9 


? 


— 2.81 


— .48 






142 


8 





— 1.05 


— .15 






llt3 


15 





- -74 


— .95 


— 6.73 


— 5.99 


lU 


9 







+ 1.80 


— 6.38 


— 5.41 


145 


9 







+ 3.28 


— 1.14 


— 5.41 


U6 


11 







+ .90 


— 6.26 


F 


W 


16 





0.00 


— .75 






148 


20 













149 


18 





— 3.30 


— 2.47 






150 


12 





— 2.12 


— 2.06 


— 2.80 


F 


151 


12 





+ 2.00 


+ .59 






152 


9 


1 


+ .53 


— .23 






153 


9 





— 1.41 


— .29 






154 


12 





+ .21 


— 4.94 






155 


8 





— .30 


— 1.58 






156 


8 





— 2.43 


— 4.15 






157 


10 





,+ .77 


+ .15 












Moral Imheciles. 






51 


10 





+ .50 


+ .48 


+ 14.28 


— 5.40 


80 


15 


1 


+ .05 


— .97 


+ 3.48 


+ 2.15 


82 


11 


9 


+ .93 


- -U 


— .84 


F 


H 


10 





+ 3.01 

TABLE 


+ .92 
XXIX. 






No. 


Dictation. 

I8t. 


Dictation. 
2nd. 


Dictation. 
3rd. 


Dictation. 
4th. 


Dictation. 
Total. 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 


— 1.00 


+ 1.71 


— 1.39 


— .57 


— 1.17 


— 2.88 


— 4.00 


+ .04 


+ .87 


— 1.62 


— 5.22 


— 8.55 


— 3.83 


— 7.87 


— 5.71 


7 
8 




77 


— .64 


— 3.08 


— .37 


— 2.00 


9 


+ .: 


33 


+ .44 


— 3.76 


— .37 


— 2.00 


10 


— 6.00 


— 9.71 


— 4.85 


— 19.57 


— 8.00 



58 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Dictation. 

I8t. 


Dictation. 
2nd. 


Dictation. 
Srd. 


Dictation. 
4tli. 


Dictation. 
Total. 


11 


— 4.66 


+ .63 


— 3.47 


— 4.00 


— 3.08 


12 












13 


— 2.76 


— 4.09 


— 2.47 


— .22 


— 2.71 


14 


— .01 


+ .72 


— 1.41 


+ 1.00 


— .31 


15 


— .80 


— 6.00 


— 3.21 


— 3.42 


— 3.16 


16 


— 7.44 


— 4.11 


— 1.63 


— .37 


— 3.00 


17 


— .02 


— 2.09 


+ .32 


— 2.00 


— .77 


18 












19 












20 












21 


— 2.37 


+ .28 


— 3.31 


+ 2.28 


— 1.75 


22 












23 












24 












25 


+ .12 


— 9.71 


— 1.77 


— 10.57 


— 5.08 


26 


— .80 


— 3.50 


+ .91 


— .57 


— .31 


27 ' 












28 


— 5.11 


— 8.44 


— 2.42 


— 9.12 


— 5.08 


29 












30 


— 5.00 


— 12.57 


— 3.31 


— 17.71 


— 9.00 


31 


— .33 


— 4.40 


— 2.58 


— .22 


— 2.24 


32 


— .55 


— .50 


— 1.04 


— 8.00 


— 2.16 


33 


+ 1.00 


— 3.81 


— 3.69 


+ 1.00 


— 2.00 


34 


0.00 


+ .28 


— 1.00 


— .57 


— .32 


35 












36 












37 


— 1.12 


— 1.14 


— 3.31 


— .57 


— .50 


38 












39 


— 2.00 


— 4.25 






— 2.00 


40 












41 












42 


— 2.37 


— 4.72 


— 3.65 


— .57 


— 3.42 


43 


F 










44 


— 1.50 


— 2.30 


— 4.30 


— 2.20 


— 3.50 


45 


— 4-00 


— 2.00 


— 2.00 


— 4-00 


— 3.00 


46 


— 1.12 


— 6.85 


— 3.31 


— 13.28 


— 5.00 


47 


— 1.30 


— 3.86 


— 7.50 


— 6.80 


— 5.41 


48 












49 


— 2.00 


0.00 


— 6.00 


— 4-00 


— 3.00 


50 












52 












53 


— 2.00 


— 5.00 


— 6.00 


— 5.00 


— 5.00 


54 


— 4.50 


— 5.30 


— 1.30 


— 2.20 


— 3.33 


55 


— 2.80 


— 4-75 


— 1.71 


— 9.14 


— 3.39 


56 


+ .70 


— 6.37 


— 5.00 


— 3.80 


— 3.75 


57 












58 


— 6.00 


— 7.00 


— 12.00 


— 10.00 


— 8.80 


59 


— 2.00 


— 6.00 


— 8.00 


— 1.00 


— 4-30 


60 


— 2.00 


— 2.00 


— 10.00 


— 9.00 


— 5.80 


61 


— 5.00 


— 5.00 


— 11.00 


0.00 


— 5.30 



TABLES SHOWING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 



59 



No. 


Dictation. 


Dictation. 


Dictation. 


Dictation. 




1st. 


2nd. 


3rd. 


4th. 


62 


— 4.00 


— 


5.00 


0.00 


— LOO 


63 


— 5.30 


— 


5.00 


— 4-50 


— I4.8O 


64 


— 7.20 


— 


7.62 


— 1.45 


— 2.66 


65 


— 9.10 


— 


7.00 


— 6.44 


— 7.00 


66 


— 7.50 


— 


6.30 


— I4.8O 


— 8.20 


61 


— 5.00 


— 


5.42 


— 5.24 


— .51 


68 


— 2.00 




0.00 


— 4.00 


— 1.00 


69 


— 1.50 


— 


1.30 


+ 5.14 


+ .30 


10 


— 4.10 


— 


8.50 


— 14.50 


— 15.50 


11 ' 


— 1.30 


— 


9.10 


— 4.25 


— 2.10 


12 


— 1.10 


+ 


.50 


— 2.50 


— .50 


13 


— 1.50 


— 


2.30 


— 13.20 


— 6.20 


U 


— .12 


— 


2.51 


— 2.95 


+ .51 


15 


— .50 


— 


4.30 


— 15.10 


— 20 


16 


— 4.30 


— 


2.62 


— 6.20 


+ 1.00 


11 


— 5.00 


— 


3.00 


— 15.00 


0.00 


18 


— 2.00 


— 


1.00 


— 4-00 


0.00 


19 


— 6.10 


— 


3.50 


— 9.50 


— 2.50 


81 


— 1.10 


+ 


1.57 


— 2.30 


— .57 


83 


— 3.00 


— 


2.00 


— 2.00 


— 1.00 


84 


— 4.00 


— 


6.00 


— 19.00 


— 5.00 


85 


— 2.30 


— 


9.00 


— 6.25 


+ 3.80 


86 


— 3.30 


— 


8.81 


— 4-00 


— 11.80 


81 


0.00 


— 


4.30 


— .30 


+ .80 


88 


— 1.30 




0.00 


— 6.20 


— 5.00 


89 


— 2.30 


— 


6.00 


— 7.75 


— 9.00 


90 


— 1.70 


— 


8.50 


— 10.50 


— 3.50 


91 


— 3.10 


— 


4.12 


— 2.3S 


— 10.62 


92 


— 4.10 


— 


5.57 


— 3.48 


— 1.87 


93 


— 6.00 


— 


12.00 


— 12.00 


— 14.00 








Moral Imbeciles. 




51 


— 2.20 


— 


9.25 


— 3.19 


— 12.00 


80 


— 5.10 


— 


5.50 


— 8.50 


— 1.50 


82 


— 3.62 


— 


.28 


— 5.62 


+' 2.28 


H 


+ .80 


— 


1.00 


— 4-66 


— 4.85 



Dictation. 
Total. 

— 2.50 

— 1.12 

— 4.50 

— 7.75 

— 7.75 

— 4.66 

— 1.80 

— .08 

— 11.00 

— 4.92 

— 1.35 

— 5.00 

— 2.16 

— .20 

— 5.80 

— 1.80 

— 6.50 

— 1.25 

— 2.00 

— 8.30 

— 4.33 

— 6.25 

— 1.08 

— 4.00 

— 7.00 

— 7.30 

— 4.33 

— 4.08 

— 11.00 



— 4-94 

— 5.50 

— 3.66 



No. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 



Part-Whole. 
+ .28 

F 



Genus-Species. 
F 

— .75 



F 



TABLE XXX. 

Opposite. 
1st. 

— 2.69 



— 3.04 



Opposite. 
2nd. 

— 2.47 

— 4.81 

— 4.44 
F 



4.05 



Memory 
(unrel.). 

— 4.01 



— 6.37 



— 2.93 

— 1.51 



Memory 
(rel.). 
— 1.34 



4.21 



— 1.51 



60 


PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY 


DEFICIENT 


CHILDREN 




No. 


Part-Whole. 


Genus-Species. 


Opposite. 


Opposite. 


Memory 


Memory 








1st. 


2nd. 


(unrel.). 


(rel.). 


10 


F 


— 8.85 


— 4.42 


F 


— 6.54 


— 3.87 


11 






— 3.00 


F 






12 














13 


F 


F 


— 1.45 


— 2.12 


— 1.65 


— .22 


14 


— 1.69 


— .48 


F 


— 2.71 


+ .85 


+ .34 


15 






F 


F 






16 














17 


— 2.64 


— .46 


— 2.00 


— 2.00 


— .71 


+ .85 


18 






— 4.07 


— 4.18 






19 














20 


F 


F 


F 


— 5.64 


— 3.01 




21 


F 


F 


F 


F 


— 3.65 


— 2.74 


22 














23 


+ .22 


— 14.40 


— .84 


— 1.25 


— .47 


— .47 


24 


— 5.80 


F 


F 


— 1.80 


— 2.54 


— 2.54 


25 






— 3.60 


— 3.74 






26 


+ 3.58 


F 


— 2.63 


— 3.68 


— 5.29 


— 5.29 


27 














28 






F 


F 






29 














30 






P 








31 


— 2.13 


1+ .41 


F 


— 2.06 


— 2.29 


— .86 


32 


— 3.67 


F 


— 2.65 


— 2.68 


— .93 


— .93 


33 


— 1.71 


F 


— 2.80 


— 4.14 


— 3.29 


— 3.54 


34 


— 4.75 


F 


— 2.88 


— 2.23 


— 2.00 


— 3.34 


35 


— 3.22 


+ 1.60 


— 1.47 


— 1.35 


— 3.14 


— 1.14 


36 














37 














38 


F 


F 


F 


— 4.75 


— 1.67 


— .34 


39 


— 5.01 


+ .58 


— 1.90 


— 3.29 


— 4.51 


— .22 


40 








F 






41 














m 


F 


F 


F 


F 


— 6.39 


— 7.06 


43 


F 




F 




F 


F 


44 


— 11.00 


— 6.60 


— 5.00 


— 8.40 


— 2.67 


— 5.67 


^5 


— 11.00 




— 17.00 


— 19.00 


— 4.84 


— 5.01 


46 


F 


F 


F 


— 3.82 


F 


F 


lit 


F 


— 13.00 


— 4-80 


— 6.00 


— 3.58 


— 1.39 


48 


— 8.57 


— 13.00 


— 5.65 


— 8.75 


— 1.69 


— 3.77 


49 


— 12.00 


— 60.00 


— 14.00 


— 14.50 


— 1.51 


— 1.71 


50 


F 


F 




F 


— 4.29 




52 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


F 


53 


F 




F 


F 






54 


— 10.00 


— 16.60 


— 5.65 


— 8.15 


— 2.14 


— 6.08 


55 


F 




F 


— 4-87 


— 4.24 


— 6.48 


56 


F 


F 




F 


— 5.01 


— 6.95 


57 


F 


F 


F 


F 




F 


58 


— 5.71 










F 


59 


— 5.11 


— 40.00 


— 5.87 


— 6.75 


— 2.73 


— 1.67 


60 


F 


— 70.00 


— 17.00 


— 18.00 


— 4.84 


— 3.01 


61 


F 


F 


F 


F 







TABLES SHOWING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 61 



No. 


Part-Whole. 


Genus-Species. 


Opposite. 


Opposite. 


Memory 


Memory 








1st. 


2nd. 


(unrel.)- 


(rel.). 


62 


— 1.00 


0.00 


— 15.50 


— 14.50 


+ .17 


— .^4 


63 


— Uk 


— 15.75 


— 4.84 


— 6.87 






64 




— 1.04 


F 


— 6.52 


— 5.07 


— 4.32 


65 


+ .01 


— 1.74 


— 4.88 


— 4.86 


— 8.47 


— 4.69 


66 


— 1.27 


— U.60 


— 5.47 


F 


— 3.05 


— 10.80 


67 


— .17 


— 6.71 


— 4-03 


— 3.38 


— 3.67 


— 4.67 


68 


— 9.00 


— 30.00 


— 5.43 


— 7.50 


+ 1.43 


— 3.16 


69 


+: .71 


— .60 


— 4.78 


— 8.65 


— 6.01 


— 3.01 


70 


— }t.27 


— 15.00 


— 5.43 


— 7.75 


— 2.61 


— 8.39 


71 


— lt.27 


— 15.75 


F 


— 7.97 


-4-37 


— 4.34 


72 . 


0.00 


+ 1.00 


— 4.S9 


— 6.30 


— 3.05 


— 1.47 


73 


— 2.57 


— 9.60 


— 4-82 


— 7.45 


— 3.51 


— 7.62 


U 




— 2.65 


— 2.93 


— 3.78 


— 2.07 


— 2.39 


75 




— 9.60 


— 5.91 


— 7.45 


— 4.41 




76 




F 


F 








77 


— 18.00 


— 75.00 


— 18.00 


— 19.00 


— 4.84 


— 3.67 


78 


— 1.00 


— 15.00 


— 14.50 


— 13.00 


— 4.01 


— 1.01 


79 


— 1.50 


F 


— 4-39 


— 7.30 


— 1.69 


— 3.01 


81 


+ .20 


+ 1.33 


— 2.53 


— 1.94 


— 3.27 


— 2.88 


83 


+ .20 


— 9.00 


— 3.47 


— 7.25 


0.00 


+ .53 


84 


— 10.00 


— 60.00 


F 


— 8.00 


— 4.01 


— 6.34 


85 




— 3.25 


— 4.54 


— 5.81 


— 3.01 


— 4.15 


86 


— 5.71 


— 18.25 


— 4.42 


— 5.67 


— 3.11 


— 3.12 


87 


0.00 


— 6.60 


— 5.00 


— 6.65 


— 3.06 


— 5.31 


88 


— 2.14 


— 3.25 


— 2.83 


— 4.05 


— 1.87 


— 2.94 


89 


— 5.71 


— 7.00 


— 5.37 


F 


— 5.94 


— 3.61 


90 


— 5.71 


— 10.00 


— 5.65 


— 8.25 


— 4.01 


— 4.34 


91 


— .30 


— 3.69 


— 4-26 


— 5.46 


— .27 


— 4.12 


92 


— 1.80 


— 2.00 


— 3.68 


— 2.89 


— 3.27 


— 3.94 


93 


— .71 


— 20.00 


— 3.60 


F 


— 5.72 




95 




0.00 


— 11.50 








96 




— 40.00 


— 19.50 








97 




— 15.00 


— 16.00 








98 


0.00 


— 10.00 


— 11.50 


— 11.00 


— .72 


— 2.11 


99 


— 3.11 












100 




F 


F 








101 


— 127 


— 20.75 


F 


— 7.86 


— 3.91 


— 4.73 


102 














103 


— 3.00 


— 50.00 


— 17.00 


— 18.00 


— 4.29 


— 2.11 


104 


— 14.00 


— 50.00 


— 18.00 


F 


— 5.01 


— 5.79 


105 


— 14.00 


— 45.00 


— 18.50 


F 


— 2.86 


— 5.27 


106 














107 


— 2.00 


— 5.00 


— 14.50 


— 12.00 


+ 1.43 


— .53 


108 


— 4-75 


— 10.28 


— 3.50 


F 


— 3.78 


— 3.56 


109 




— 6.00 


F 








110 






— 5.28 








111 






F 








112 


— 5.71 


— 13.20 


— 4.84 


— 3.96 


— 5.07 


— 8.74 


113 


— .39 


.+ .71 


— 3.65 


— 5.58 


— 5.01 


— .63 


m 




+ 1.50 


F 








115 


— 5.71 


— 15.75 


— 4-69 


— 7.37 







62 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Part-Whole. 


Genus-Species 


Opposite. 


Opposite. 


Memory 


Memory 








1st. 


2nd. 


(unrel.). 


(rel.). 


116 


— 7.00 


0.00 


— 17.00 


— 17.00 


— .72 


— 2.64 


117 














118 


— 2.00 


0.00 


— 14.00 


— 13.00 


— .72 


0.00 


119 


— 3.92 


F 


F 


F 


— 4.89 


— 6.89 


120 


— 3.57 


— 50.00 


— 18.50 


— 19.00 


— 5.01 


— 6.32 


121 


— 8.57 


— 15.00 


F 


F 


— 3.96 


— 7.62 


122 




F 


F 








123 














m 














125 


— 7.00 


— 60.00 


— 17.50 


— 16.00 


— 1.43 


— 2.64 


126 














127 


0.00 


— 3.40 


— 4.92 


— 5.92 


— 3.74 


— 3.69 


128 


— Jf-OO 


— 10.00 


F 


— 18.00 


.+ 1.84 


— 1.00 


129 


— 4.00 


— 70.00 


— 17.50 


— 17.00 


— 2.86 


— 3.16 


130 


0.00 


0.00 


— 10.50 


— 5.00 


+ 1.43 


— 1.06 


131 














132 


— 12.00 


F 


— 17.50 


— 18.00 


— 2.86 


— 2.64 


133 


— 3.92 


— 10.28 


F 


F 






134 


— 5.71 


— 16.60 


— 4.82 


F 


— ^.87 


— 6.08 


135 


+ .71 


— 1.00 


— 2.47 


— 2.10 


— .82 


+ .85 


136 


— 1.00 


— 12.00 


— 17.00 


— 13.00 


— .67 


— 2.34 


137 














138 




F 


F 

Moral Imbeciles 








51 


— 3.58 




— 2.96 


— 4.77 




— 5.89 


80 


— 1.42 


— 9.00 


— 3.65 


— 6.00 


— .78 


— 2.24 


82 


— 1.63 


— .01 


— 1.56 


— 2.31 


— .39 


— 2.28 


H 


— 1.22 








— 3.65 


—2.95 



TABLE XXXI. 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temp. 


Wt. Test. 


1 


+ 1.46 


— .25 


— 5.54 


2 


+ .77 




F 


3 


+ 1.92 


— 2.00 


— .67 


4 


+ .06 


— 1.00 


— .49 


5 


+ 2.85 


— 3.00 


— 3.48 


6 


— 2.74 


— 3.00 


— 4.71 


7 


— .64 


— 3.25 


F 


8 


+ 3.55 


+ .50 


— .73 


9 


+ .06 


0.00 


+ .14 


10 


+ .06 


— .75 


+ 1.74 


11 


+ 2.16 


— .75 


— 3.14 


12 


+ 2.85 




F 


13 


+ .06 


— 1.00 


— 3.25 


14 


+ 1.31 


— 1.75 


— 3.74 


15 


+ 1.31 


0.00 


— 4.36 


16 


— 1.81 


— .25 


— 2.64 



TABLES 8H0WING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 63 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temp. 


Wt. Test. 


17 


+ .06 


— .25 


— 1.15 


18 


■+ .76 


+ .25 


— 1.18 


19 


+ .76 


+ .25 


F 


20 


— .64 


+ .25 


— 1.39 


21 


+ .06 


— 2.00 


— 3.26 


22 


+ 2.85 




— 1.44 


23 


+ 1.31 


— 2.75 


— 2.85 


24 


+ .06 


— 1.00 


— 4.62 


25 


— .64 


— 2.00 


— 6.75 


26 


'+ 2.85 


— .25 


+ 1.61 


27 


— 1.34 


— .'50 


F 


28 


— .64 


+ .25 


— .79 


29 


■+ .06 




— .71 


30 




+ 1.51 




31 


+ 2.16 


■+ .25 


F 


32 




— .50 




33 


■+ .06 


+ .75 


+ 2.05 


34 


+ 1.46 


— .50 


— 7.85 


35 


+ .06 


— 1.50 


— .77 


36 


+ .06 


— 6.00 


F 


37 


+ 1.46 


— .75 


— 3.72 


38 


+ 1.46 


— 4.25 


H- 1.24 


39 


+ 2.86 


+ .50 


— 2.21 


40 


— 2.74 


0.00 


+ 1.65 


41 


+ .06 




— 14.47 


42 


+ .12 


— .75 


— 11 


43 


+ .25 




F 


44 


+ .76 




— 2.51 


45 


0.00 




— 11.50 


46 


— 1.67 


— 3.00 


F 


47 


— 1.31 


— 1.25 


— 3.54 


48 








49 


+ .60 




— 5.00 


50 


+ 3.25 




— 12.44 


52 








53 


0.00 




+ 1.42 


54 


— 1.31 


— 3.00 


— 1.71 


55 


— 1.31. 


— .75 


+ 1.11 


56 


— 2.74 


— .25 


— 6.54 


57 








58 


+ 1.00 




— 2.25 


59 


— 2.04 


— 2.00 


+ 1.23 


60 


— 1.20 




— 1.87 


61 


— 1.59 


— .50 




62 


— 1.40 




— 1.42 


63 


— .60 


OM 


+ .39 


64 




— 1.00 


— 3.74 


65 


— .99 


— 2.75 


— 4.04 


66 


+ 1.52 


— 1.00 


— 1.32 



64 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temp. 


Wt. Test. 


67 


— 1.08 


— .75 


— 9.71 


68 








69 


— 2.27 


— 4.75 


— 2.27 


70 


— 2.00 


+ .75 


— .^.78 


71 


- 42 




— 6.74 


72 


— 3.65 


— .50 


+ .39 


7S 


— .11 


— .25 


— 4-28 


n 


— .72 


+ .50 


— .08 


75 


— 3.65 


0.00 


+ -84 


76 


— 1.79 


0.00 


— 1.12 


77 






— 10.33 


78 


-3.17 


— 3.25 


— 16.50 


79 


— 1.11 


— .75 


— 1.34 


81 


+ .30 


+ .75 


+ .28 


83 


— 5.37 


— .50 


— .56 


84 


- .42 


— X.75 


— 4-27 


85 


— .72 


— .75 


+ .74 


86 


— 1.55 


0.00 


— 2.97 


87 


-f .39 




— .n 


88 


— .76 


0.00 


— 7.31 


89 


+ .25 


— 1.00 


— 5.31 


90 


— .74 


+ .25 


— 13.08 


91 


0.00 


+ .75 


+ 1.16 


92 


— 1.23 


0.00 


— 3.11 


93 


+ .37 


— .50 


— 6.86 


1S9 


— 4-97 




— 3.41 


im 


— .50 


— 3.25 




m 


+ .12 


0.00 




142 


— .64 


+ .75 




US 


— .62 


— .25 




m 


+ .12 


— .75 


— 3.38 


145 


— .50 


+ .75 


— 2.34 


U6 


— .50 


— 1.50 


+ .78 


147 


— 2.01 


— 3.25 


F 


U8 




— L75 


— 12.75 


149 


+ 1.75 




— 1.16 


150 


+ -84 


+ .75 


— 3.47 


151 


+ .12 


— 1.00 


— .86 


152 


— .50 




F 


153 


,+ .18 




F 


154 


+ .76 




F 


155 


,+ 2.16 




F 


156 


— 1.34 




F 


157 


+ .06 




— 1.51 




Moral Imheciles. 




51 


— 1.31 


— 1.00 


— 8.73 


80 


— 1.87 


— 1.00 


+ 1.23 


82 


— 3.70 


— .25 


+ .78 


94 


— .12 


— 1.00 


+ 140 



TABLES SHOWING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 65 

TABLE XXXII. 



No. 


Intelligence. 


Memory. 


Maturity. 


Total. 


1 


— 1.62 


— 1.75 


— 3.36 


— 2.31 


2 










3 


— 2.59 


— 2.91 


— 1.70 


— 2.22 


4 










5 








— 4.59 


6 










7 










8 




— 1.75 


— 2.77 


— 2.70 


9 








— 1.12 


10 


— 6.63 


— 5.92 


— 2.01 


— 4.15 


11 








— 2.50 


12 










13 




— 1.46 


— 1.71 


— 1.67 


14 


— 1.62 


+ .01 


— 1.64 


— 1.27 


15 








— 2.81 


16 








— 2.82 


17 


— 1.77 


+ .04 


— 1.15 


— 1.16 


18 








— 2.31 


19 










20 






— 2.13 


— 2.98 


21 




— 2.24 


— 3.24 


— 2.91 


22 










23 


— 4.06 




— .70 


— 2.77 


24 


— 3.80 




— 2.75 


— 3.02 


25 








— 3.75 


26 


— 3.29 


— 2.80 


— .94 


— 2.16 


27 










28 






— 1.70 


— 2.54 


29 






— 3.53 




30 








— 5.02 


31 


— 1.26 


— 1.50 


— 1.46 


— 1.41 


32 


— 3.00 


— 1.54 


— .20 


— 1.43 


33 


— 2.88 


— 2.77 


— .58 


— 1.61 


34 


— 3.28 


— 1.83 


— 3.21 


— 2.70 


35 


— 1.11 




— .50 


— .84 


36 










37 








— 2.11 


38 






— .04 


— .67 


39 


— 2.40 


— 1.11 


— 2.29 


— 2.10 


40 








— 3.13 


41 








— 10.63 


42 




— 5.74 


— 2.59 


— 3.47 


43 










44 


— 7.50 


— 4.58 


— 2.76 


— 5.12 


45 


— 15.66 


— 4.00 


— 8.17 


— 10.15 


46 








- 4.41 


47 


— 7.93 


— 3.40 


— 2.69 


— 4.01 


48 


— 8.99 




— 2.84 


— 6.50 



66 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Intelligence. 


Memory. 


Maturity. 


Total. 


49 


— 22.62 


— 2.35 


— 3.25 


— 13.96 


50 






— 8.36 




52 










53 








— 6.86 


54 


— 10.10 


— 4.70 


+ .36 


— 4.80 


55 




— 4.93 


— 2.82 


— 3.72 


56 




— 5.35 


— 5.32 


— 5.33 


67 










58 








— 5.58 


59 


— 14.58 


— 2.98 


— .75 


— 8.23 


60 




-4.40 


— 3.35 


— 17.21 


61 








— 3.76 


62 


— 7.75 


— .13 




— ^.79 


63 


— 7.90 


— 3.73 


— 2.75 


— 5.65 


64 


— 3.78 


— 4.43 


— 4.35 


— 4.20 


65 


— 2.46 


— 6.22 


— 5.62 


— 4.57 


66 


— 7.11 


— 6.93 


— 4.02 


— 6.21 


67 


— 3.57 


-4.17 


— 6.42 


— ^.77 


68 


— 12.98 


— 2.48 


— 2.57 


— 7.24 


69 


— 3.33 


— 1.54 


— 4.60 


— 3.48 


70 


— 8.11 


— 5.50 


— 3.69 


- 7.41 


71 


— 9.66 


— 4.35 


— 3.30 


— 5.89 


72 


— 2.17 


— 2.26 


— 2.54 


— 2.23 


73 


— 6.11 


— 5.56 


— 4.91 


— 5.67 


^4 


— 3.12 




— 1.17 


- 1.74 


75 


— 7.65 


— 2.22 




— 4-31 


76 








— 4.08 


77 


— 32.50 


— 4.25 




— 19.34 


78 


— 10.87 


— 2.51 




— 8.35 


79 


— 4-39 


-2.35 


— 2.75 


— 3.58 


81 


— .73 


— 2.06 


— .27 


— .82 


83 


— 4.88 


— .73 


— .75 


— 2.39 


84 


— 26.00 


— 5.17 


— 5.31 


— 13.28 


85 


— 4.53 


— 3.58 


— 2.52 


— 3.42 


86 


— 8.51 


— 3.11 


— 1.99 


— 5.13 


87 


— 4-56 


— 4.18 


— 3.72 


— 3.72 


88 


— 3.06 


— 3.47 


— 4.19 


— 3.60 


89 


— 6.36 


— 5.30 


— 4.73 


— 5.29 


90 


— 7.40 


— 5.82 


— 5.81 


— 6.55 


91 


— 3.67 


— 2.19 


— 1.68 


— 2.71 


92 


— 2.59 


— 4.01 


— 2.12 


— 2.47 


93 


— 9.00 




— 5.23 


— 7.36 


95 


— 7.90 








96 








-19.93 


97 










98 


— 8.10 






— 5.88 


99 










100 










101 


— 10.99 


— 4.32 


— 4.21 


— 7.67 


102 










103 


— 22.00 






— 15.73 



TABLES SHOWING RESULTS OF COMPARISON 67 

No. Intelligence. Memory. 

104 —27.33 

105 —25.83 
106 

107 — 8.50 

■108 — 6.n —S.67 
109 
110 
111 

112 — 6.93 

113 — 2.22 

114 

115 — 8.S5 

116 — 10.25 
117 

118 — 7.25 

119 —5.89 

120 — 22.79 

121 — 11.78 — 5.79 
122 
123 
124 

125 —25.12 
126 

127 — 3.56 

128 —10.66 + 42 

129 —27.12 

130 — 3.87 
131 

132 — 15.83 — 10.60 

ISS 

m — 9.04 —5.47 — 7.34 

135 — 1.21 -t- .01 . — .70 

136 —10.75 — 8.00 
137 

Moral Imbeciles. 

51 — 3.77 —5.41 + .05 — 2.67 

80 — 5.01 —1.51 +1.15 — 2.17 

82 — 1.89 -1.33 — .78 — 1.32 

94 — 5.75 —3.30 — 1.96 

The figures in the tables printed above contain the results of this 
investigation, and answer, in part at least, the questions raised at the 

beginning. They seem to point to the following general conclusions : 

(1) The mental defects among idiots are by no means equaled by 
the bodily. In fact, in measurements of height and weight the de- 
fectives are indistinguishable from ordinary children. 

(2) In general, at least as far as intelligence is concerned, idiots 
do not form a separate species, but simply occupy a position at the 



Maturity. 


Total. 


— 4.77 


— 16.22 




— 17.12 




— 5.51 


— 2.46 


— 4-50 




— 4.13 




— 244 


— 4.85 


— 6.37 


— 4.05 


— 2.52 




— 7.90 




— 7.93 




— 4.92 




— 5.91 


— 3.95 


— 13.65 




— 8.94 




— 2.31 




— 17.42 


— 3.51 


— 3.55 




— 6.48 


— 4:54 


— 14.43 




— 2.52 



68 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

extreme of some large distribution, probably approximately that 
expressed by the normal probability curve, 

(3) Among idiots there is not an equal lack of mental capacity 
in all directions. There is something of the same lack of correlation 
among the traits measured in the case of idiots as there is with 
ordinary people. 

As I have already stated, these conclusions are drawn directly 
from the tables of measurements, but in order to make clear the fact 
that the figures warrant these conclusions I will take them up one 
at a time and show the way in which each was reached. The first 
point is that the mental deficiency of the idiots as compared with 
ordinary children is in no way equaled by bodily deficiency. 

§ 12. Results Bearing on Physical Status 

The following table gives the comparison of defectives with chil- 
dren in general, in terms of the percentage of each in the measure- 
ments taken which fall above a given point. 

For normal children 50 per cent, will fall above the median and 
50 per cent, below in every test ; 75 per cent, will fall above — 1 P. E. 
and 25 per cent, below, and 91 per cent, above — 2 P. E. 



TABLE 


XXXIII. 








Defectives 








Per cent, above 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 




Median for Ordi- 
nary Children 


above— 1 P. E. 


above— 2 P. E. 


Height (7) 




45 


61 


77 


Weight (8) 




44 


66 


77 


Pulse (9) 




49 


69 


86 


Temperature (10) 




26 


59 


77 


Weight test (13) 




18 


28 


39 


A test (1) 




9 


18 


34 


a-t test (2) 




1 


14 


28 


Memory of unrelated words (4) 




6 


18 


27 


Composite of 13, 1, 2 and 4 




1 


15 


27 


Dictation (14) 




10 


10 


21 


Memory of related words (3) 




5 


19 


30 


Composite of 14 and 3 




7 


10 


24 


Part- Whole test (6B) 




9 


17 


27 


Genus- Species test (6C) 




9 


16 


17 


First Opposite test ( 6 A I ) 







.9 


5 


Second Opposite test (6 A II) 







1 


7 


Composite of 6 B, C, A I and All 





1 


10 



It is evident from these figures that in the measurements of height 
and weight the defectives almost reach the standard of children in 



RESULTS BEARING ON PHYSICAL STATUS 69 

general, there being only 5 per cent, and 6 per cent, less of the de- 
fectives at the median point than of school children. In the tests of 
memory and of intelligence^ only 10 per cent, and 5 per cent., 
9 per cent, and per cent., respectively, of defectives reach the 
50 per cent, grade of the other children. The same thing holds true 
if we notice in each case the percentage of those above minus once 
the P. E. and minus twice the P. E. In the physical measurements 
there are about 4 times as many defectives above — 1 P. E. and 
about 2.5 times as many above — 2 P. E. as there are in the memory 
and intelligence tests. "Without doubt there is a decided difference 
between the bodily and mental deficiency. 

The same facts are emphasized by the following graphic repre- 
sentations. In every surface the zero point represents the median 
for school children in general; the figures on the right of the zero 
point are positive multiples of the P. E. and those on the left are 
negative multiples. Therefore the children whose grade is indicated 
on the right of the zero point are above the standard for children at 
large in that particular measurement and those occurring on the left 
of that point are below the ordinary ability. The figure at each 
point shows how much above or below ordinary ability in multiples 
of one tenth of the P. E. 

Figs.- 6, 7 and 8, which show the distributions for the physical 
measurements of height, weight and pulse rate, show clearly that the 
distributions are almost normal, the curves following pretty closely 
the usual probability curve, the cases clustering about the zero point, 
i. e., the median of the distribution of cases in general. On the other 
hand the curves 14 to 23 inclusive, which show the distributions for 
memory and intelligence, are anything but normal, being decidedly 
skewed towards the negative end. 

These facts, then, seem to justify the conclusion before mentioned 
and to show that whatever idiots may be on the mental side, as far 
as concerns physical conditions of growth, nutriment, etc., they are 
not far from ordinary children. 'The evidences of constitutional 
weakness, of slow growth and of inferior size,' which by many are 
held to be characteristic of mental deficiency, do not appear. These 
children were certainly not two inches shorter and nine pounds 
lighter than children in general. 

It may be objected that the idiots examined were a selected group 
and that is the reason for the high results. True, the very worst 
idiots were not included in these measurements, those poor wretches 
so deformed that they can neither walk nor stand, but on the other 

^I use this word rather loosely, as these tests may not be any more of a 

measurement of ' intelligence ' than some of the others used. 



70 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



FIG.6 



en. 



80 60 45 30 16 16 30 45 60 



FIG.7 



£ 



6 45 30 15 15 30 46 60 



FIG.8 



h 



45 30 15 15 30 46 



FIG.9 



eO 45 30 15 

Fig. 6. Height. 
Fig. 7. Weight. 



15 30 

Fig. 8, Pulse. 

Fig. 9. Temperature. 



RESULTS BEARING ON PHYSICAL STATUS 



71 



FIG. 10 



n-^ 




F 120 100 80 60 40 20 20 



FIG.II 



I 



^ 



F 100 80 60 40 20 20 60 



riG.i2 



F 75 60 45 30 16 16 80 



FIG.13 




F 80 76 60 46 30 16 16 30 



Fig. 10, Weight Test. Fig. 12. A-T Test. 

Fig. 11. A Test. Fig. 13. Memory Test (1). Unrelated Words. 



72 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



FIG.14 




100 80 60 40 20 o 20 



riG.i5 




120 100 80 60 40 20 Q 20 



FiG.ie 



140 120 100 80 60 40 20 20 60 



FIG.17 




140 120 100 80 

Fig. 14. Dictation Test (1). 
Fig. 15. Dictation Test (2). 



60 40 20 20 

Fig. 16. Dictation Test (3). 
Fig. 17. Dictation Test (4). 



RESULTS BEARING ON PHYSICAL STATUS 



73 




FIG.18 



105 90 75 60 45 30 16 



FIG.19 



f 90 76 60 45 SO 15 16 



FIG:20 



K 200 176 150 125 100 



75 



50 



26 



FIG.21 




F: 200 175 150 126 100 



75 



50 



25 



Fig 18. Dictation Tests. Composite of All. Fig. 20. Opposite Test (1), 

Fig. 19. Memory Test (2). Related Words. Fig. 21. Opposite Test (2), 



74 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



FIG.22 




n=£i 



FT 80 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 10 



FIG.23 



f 180 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 %0 

Fig. 22. Genus- Species Test. Fig. 23. Part- Whole Test. 



hand neither are all ordinary children examined in obtaining stand- 
ards for height, weight and other physical measurements. Only 
the school children of the several cities were measured and weighed 
when the standards for 'normal' children were obtained, and of 
course those children who are all right mentally but who are de- 
formed and diseased physically do not so often go to school. In both 
instances school cases were examined, and to that extent both groups 
were selected and therefore the results are comparable. 

It may be further maintained that although the results obtained 
are comparable to some extent, yet they do not represent the true 
state of the case, for the proportion of the mentally deficient who 
are physically defective and the proportion of ordinary children who 
are so afflicted are not at all the same. In the first place this has to 
be proven ; at present it is merely a matter of opinion. In the second 
place those children who are both physically and mentally deficient 
are more likely to find their way to institutions than those who may 
be only mentally deficient. Parents will keep a child at home if he 
is physically able to move about and attend to his own wants even 
though he may be below par intellectually, whereas if he is physically 
as well as mentally deficient he is much more troublesome and conse- 
quently is more likely to be sent away. Therefore, even should it be 
proven that in institutions for the feeble-minded the proportion of 



RESULTS BEARING ON PHYSICAL STATUS 75 

physical defects is greater than that found among ordinary school 
children, the point would not be proven. 

It is rather interesting to note that mouth temperature • seems 
more closely connected with the degree of mental efficiency than 
with physical health. The percentage of idiots that reached the 
median for other people in this measurement, as given by Table 
XXXIII. (page 68), was 26, which is rather more closely correlated 
with the mental than with the physical tests. Fig. 9 emphasizes the 
fact, for the curve of distribution is in shape more like those repre- 
senting the distribution for intelligence than like those for height 
• and weight. 

In order to show this more clearly, I took the temperature of the 
20 brightest girls from the third and fourth year classes of a large 
public school and 31 ordinary girls picked from the same classes, 
ranging in age from 8 years to 13 years and 6 months. These results 
with those gained from 38 mental defectives found in the same school 
and those gained from 55 idiots in institutions are shown in Table 
XXXIV. 

From this table it may be seen that the average temperature of 
the four classes of children examined decreases, the idiots confined 
in institutions having the lowest average (97.4+). Only 28 per 
cent, of these defectives reach or exceed the 50 per cent, mark for 
the ordinary children, and only 5 per cent, reach the median for the 
bright children. High temperature does seem then to go slightly 
with mental ability. A number of writers, Ireland among them, 
have noted the fact that the temperature of idiots is lower than that 
of ordinary people. Preseott reports in the Pedagogical Seminary, 
Vol, IX., that of 10 children whose temperature was the highest out 
of 71, 80 per cent, ranked as excellent or good in school work, while 
of the 7 children whose temperature was the lowest, only 43 per cent, 
ranked even as good, which also seems to point to the conclusion 
mentioned. 

The variation which I found in temperature was greater than I 
had expected, ranging from 94.2° to 100°. This may seem rather 
extraordinary and of course there may have been some error, but 
the temperature was taken twice in most instances — the second time 
after an hour's mental work— and still these very low ones stayed 
proportionally low. Five of the lowest changed as follows: 94.2° 
to 95° ; 95° to 96.4° ; 96° to 94° ; 96.2° to 96.8° ; 96.4° to 96.4°. In 
all cases the temperature as recorded was taken at the mouth, as I 
could not conveniently get the body temperature elsewhere, and it 
may be that the temperature recorded was simply local, that of the 
head, and that the general body temperature was higher. This 



76 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

seems rather plausible as a theory in view of the fact that low tem- 
perature goes to some extent with low intellectual power, for in that 
case there might be less blood going to the head in the case of idiots 
than with ordinary people and consequently the temperature, though 
lower there, might, in other parts of the body, be more on a par with 
that of people in general. 

TABLE XXXIV. 
Temperatuee at the Mouth 





Bright 


Ordinary 


Defectives 
inP.S. 


Defectives in 
Institutions 


94.2 up to 








1 


4 











6 











8 











95.0 








1 


2 











4 






1 





6 












8 












96.0 









1 


2 






1 


s 


4 




2 


2 


4 


6 







1 


1 


8 













97.0 




1 








2 







3 


2 


4 







1 


3 


6 


1 


3 


1 


3 


8 





2 





3 


98.0 


1 


2 


4 


7 


2 


1 


2 


3 


6 


4 


1 


7 


4 


3 


6 


2 


3 


4 


4 


8 





3' 


3 


5 


99.0 


2 





6 





2 


3 


1 


2 


3 


4 


2 


3 


1 


5 


6 


2 


2 







8 


3 









100.0 


1 




1 




2 


1 








Median, 


99.3 + 


98.5 


98.5 


98.1 + 


Average, 


99.2 + 


98.4 + 


98.3 + 


97.4 + 



On the other hand, these very low temperatures may be ac- 
counted for by the fact that the children may not have held the 
thermometer down closely against the tongue, but simply held it 
under the tongue rather loosely, or they may not have kept their 



RESULTS BEARING ON CONTINUITY OF SPECIES 77 

moutlis shut tightly. I simply offer these as suggestions ; so far as I 
know, the temperature was taken as it should have been. 

The lack of correlation between pulse and temperature is rather 
surprising in view of the fact that physicians usually consider a 
rapid pulse as indicative of high temperature. This does not seem 
to hold here, for the pulse rate of the idiots was about that of people 
in general, 49 per cent, having reached the median of children in 
general, but the average for temperature was considerably below the 
median for other people. Of course the reason that they have been 
so correlated in people's minds is probably because both high tem- 
perature and rapid pulse occur in fever, but the connection between 
them is evidently not so close as has been supposed, 

§ 13. Results Bearing on the Continuity of the Species 

My second conclusion was that idiots seem not to form a special 
class or species, at least as far as intellectual traits are concerned, 
but that they are included as part of a large distribution. I use the 
terms 'special class' and 'separate species' in the same sense as 
writers on this subject in general have used them. A group of indi- 
viduals forming a separate species in any trait would be a group 
clustering about a certain central point and lying in the main out- 
side the distribution of ordinary individuals in that trait. Its cases 
would in the main lie over 5 P. E. distant from the median for 
ordinary people. Here then we have two factors concerned in the 
determination of a 'species'— form of distribution and spread of dis- 
tribution. Considering the second factor first, Figs. 20, 21, 22 and 
23, which show the distribution for those tests which we are inclined 
to designate as most closely connected with intelligence, do not fulfill 
the requirements of 'special species' from the standpoint of spread. 
In every test the cases run up to the median for ordinary children, 
and from Table XXXIII. (page 68) we see that more than 15 per 
cent, of the cases are included within the limits of normal distribu- 
tion. Fig. 24, which is a composite of the four intelligence tests and 
shows the distribution of their averages for each child, illustrates the 
same fact.^ 

^ In making this average those cases of F were not considered at all, but only 
the tests in which the child had a grade of some kind were taken into account. 
This method was always followed in making an average. It would be interesting 
to know if the results would be the same had the F's been weighted. Of course, 
there are two possibilities in the weighting — to give the F a weight equal to the 
average of the grades received by that child in the other measurements, or to 
give the F a grade below the lowest grade received by any one in that test. 
This, however, has not been done as yet. 



78 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



FIG. 24 



n^ 



280 250 220 150 120 90 60 30 



F\Q.25 




70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 



FIG.26 




80 



60 



60 



40 



80 



20 



10 



10 



Fig. 24. Intelligence Tests. Composite of Tests 6 A I, 6 A II, 6B and 6 C. 

Fig. 25. Memory Tests. Composite of Tests 14 and 3. 

Fig. 26. Maturity Tests. Composite of Tests 13, 12 and 4. 



The grouping of any set of measurements always tends to throw 
emphasis on the norm and to eliminate individual variations, and 
that is what has happened in this case, and the conclusion can only 
be as stated that, overlapping the normal distribution as it does, this 
distribution can not be that of a special species. Figs. 14, 15, 16 
and 17, which show the results of the individual dictations given in 



RESULTS BEARING ON CONTINUITY OF SPECIES 79 

test 14, Fig. 18, which shows these records combined, and Fig. 19, 
which shows the results of the test of memory of related words, all 
indicate that, from the standpoint of memory, there is no evidence 
of a special species. In some of the measurements the cases run as 
high as two and three times the P. E. above the median, and even 
higher in a few instances, while even in Fig. 25, which is the com- 
posite for the memory tests, the cases run a little above the central 
tendency of ordinary people. The results of the tests which I con- 
sider to be tests of maturity chiefly, point to the same conclusion. 
This is shown by Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 26. The 'spread' of these 
surfaces and their overlapping of the corresponding surfaces for 
ordinary children then prove that there can be no separate species 
of idiots, at least in the traits examined. 

Looking at the question from the standpoint of the form of dis- 
tribution, we must arrive at the same answer. Going back to Figs. 
20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, which show the distribution for the intelligence 
tests, no separate class or species could be represented by such sur- 
faces as these. They show themselves plainly to be fag-ends of some 
larger curve. Of course the existence of such a large number of 
individuals who failed to do anything with these tests may be em- 
phasized as a point against the conclusion on the ground that their 
presence in the surface might have changed its character. This ob- 
jection will not hold, however, for such cases occur rather frequently 
among ordinary children and it has been found that when, upon a 
second trial, they have been made to understand the requirements, 
their records are scattered over a long distance on the scale, being 
in general low. Therefore, in this case we may presume that had 
the idiots understood what was wanted, their records would have 
been scattered over the lower part of the present distribution and 
hence not have materially affected the form of the surface. The 
surfaces showing the results of the memory tests. Figs. 14, 15, 16, 
17, 18, 19 and 25, also show the absence of special grouping which 
would imply the existence of a species. The massing at the upper 
end of the surface is not so evident here as it was in the intelligence 
tests, but still there is nothing to point to the presence of a separate 
species. Glancing at the Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 26, which show the 
results of the maturity tests, one might at first think that the form 
at least was indicative of a species. There is something that looks 
like a central tendency at a point three times the P. E. below the 
zero point. Still the fact that this point itself falls within the limits 
of the normal surface of distribution and the further fact that the 
cases spread down to — 8 P. E. make the existence of a special species 
extremely doubtful. 



80 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



I made one other combination of results which in itself is prac- 
tically valueless but which, taken in the light of the individual meas- 
urements shown, is of interest. Fig. 27 represents a composite of all 
the marks gained by each individual, save the physical measurements 
—height, weight, temperature and pulse. It contains more cases 



FIG.27 



180 150 120 90 60 30 

Fig. 27. Total. Composite of All Mental Tests. 



than many of the other surfaces, for there were very few children 
who failed in every test right through. Of course the traits tested 
were so different that an average of all the results as expressed in 
such a curve is of little value. But it does show that so far as such 
a composite measure is valid, the defectives are not a separate spe- 
cies in the composite any more than they are in definite particular 
traits. 

The question now comes up, "If these idiots do not form a special 
class, have we a right to say that they form the extreme of the 
ordinary surface of distribution." This is the view that has been 
supported by Galton, Ireland and Thorndike, although there seems 
to be no definite evidence. The fact already mentioned that the 
curves showing the distribution of idiots in the various measurements 
overlap the curves showing the distributions of ordinary ability, 
sometimes to such an extent that the upper limit is above the median, 
is strong evidence in support of the theory. In order to make 
the argument stronger, in the total mark for intelligence, memory 
and maturity, I separated the defectives found in the public school 
from those found in the institutions. Figs. 28, 29 and 30 show the 
results, the dotted lines representing the public school defectives and 



RESULTS BEARING ON CONTINUITY OF SPECIES 81 

the solid lines the institutional idiots.^ It is very evident in Fig. 28 
that the public school defectives occupy the position at the top of 



FIG, 28 



880 256 S20 150 120 90 60 30 



riG.29 




40 



80 



20 



10 



10 



FIG.30 




I — i 






80 60 50 40 30 20 10 

Public School and Institutional Cases Compabed. 



10 



Fia. 28. Intelligence Tests. Composite of Tests 6 A I, 6 A II, 6 B and 6 C. 

Fig. 29. Memory Tests. Composite of Tests 14 and 3. 

Fig. 30. Maturity Tests. Composite of Tests 13, 1, 2 and 4. 



^The small number of cases in these curves is explained by the fact that 
a misunderstanding of one or two tests would throw a child's marks out entirely, 
as these records represent average marks and not single tests. 

6 



82 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

the curve, just below the zero point, all but one case fall above 
— 4.5 P. E. and none fall below — 7 P. E., while the other idiots 
rank as low as — 28 P. E. Now the fact that these defectives who 
fall near the central tendency of ordinary ability are those who are 
still in the public school, although in special classes, is significant. 
These children have been considered to fall at the extreme of normal 
children, in intelligence at least. They have not been considered de- 
fective enough to be sent to institutions but have simply been given 
more and different attention from that given to ordinary children. 
Their records, as shown by the surface, overlap the records of ordi- 
nary children and those of the idiots as well. They form the con- 
necting link between children in general and those so defective men- 
tally as to be confined in institutions. The position occupied by 
these school defectives in the curves representing the memory and 
maturity tests is similar to that for intelligence but is not quite so 
well defined. In each case they fall in the upper half of the surface 
and in general tend to be those near the zero point. 

This additional proof strengthens the conclusion reached that 
idiots do not form a special class but belong to the ordinary distribu- 
tion; and further that this distribution is a continuous one, there 
being no sudden break in ability, above which we find ordinary chil- 
dren and below which we find the idiot, but that the decrease in 
ability is gradual. It seems a steady progression from that of the 
ordinary child, through those special cases of mentally deficient 
children still retained in school, to those idiots found in institutions 
who can do most of the ordinary school work and seem to be not very 
different from children in general, on to those who can simply do 
manual labor and so down through all the gradations of complete 
idiocy. 

§ 14. Results Bearing on the Generality of the Mental Defect 

The third general conclusion was that there is not among idiots 
an equal lack of mental capacity in all lines. This fact has already 
been brought out in dealing with the first two questions, but a glance 
at Table XXXIII. (page 68) will serve to emphasize it. In the 
weight test there are 18 per cent, above the median for ordinary chil- 
dren, in memory 10 per cent, and 5 per cent., and in the intelligence 
tests 9 per cent, and per cent. In the composites of these different 
series of measurements there are 27 per cent., 24 per cent, and 10 
per cent., respectively, above — 2 P. E. This means that in going 
from the tests of maturity to those of intelligence we find an in- 
creasing number of idiots that fall below the standards for children 



RESULTS BEARING ON GENERALITY OF DEFECT 83 

in general. Besides finding a greater number below tbe standard, 
the variability from that standard becomes greater in the intelligence 
tests and also the average ability as compared with the other children 
is lower. Figs. 24, 25 and 26 show the median for idiots in the intel- 
ligence tests to be about — 7 P. E., for memory to be — 3.5 P. E. 
and for maturity records to be — 2.7 P. E. The idiots are nearest 
the central tendency for children in general in the measurements of 
mental traits which are chiefly tests of maturity, and farther and 
farther away as measurements are made which are tests of ability to 
deal with abstract data. They are two and a, half times as far from 
the median for children in general in tests like the opposite test or 
genus-species test as they are in tests like the A test or the perception 
of weight. 

To speak of idiots then as being equally deficient in all the mental 
powers is false. 'Arrested mental development' must be taken to 
mean unequal arrests, some powers receiving a very much greater 
check than others. The feeble-minded child may be weak on all 
sides of his mental make-up (though this is not true of all of them), 
but that is not telling the whole story. From the point of view of 
the psychologist and the educator it is fully as important to know 
that the idiot's perceptive powers are almost two and a half times 
as strong and accurate as his intellectual powers and almost half as 
strong again as his powers of memory, as to know that he is weaker 
than the ordinary child in all these particulars. 

There is one other point to be mentioned before leaving this aspect 
of the subject. I believe that in the tests of motor control, of per- 
ception of form and weight and the like, the case against the idiots 
is not so bad as it seems to be. In each one of the measurements 
of this kind that were taken, not one trait but a combination of 
traits, one of which was intelligence, was measured. In every case 
there were directions given and the understanding or lack of under- 
standing of these directions had a very large influence on the result. 
I believe the main difficulty with these feeble-minded is just this lack 
of intellectual power and not so much inefficiency in perception, 
motor power, etc. The block test brings this out clearly and the 
maze test too ; the children did not get the sense of the thing, did not 
realize what was wanted; and the results are correspondingly poor. 
Much has been written of the poor muscular control possessed by 
the idiot, but it may very well be that he stumbles about in walking 
and drops things so frequently simply because he does not know just 
where he is to go, or just what he is to do, because he is in a chronic 
state of indecision or of obstructed will. In other words the real 
motor or perceptive power need not be nearly so bad as it seems to 



84 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



be, for the difficulty may be largely an intellectual one. Of course 
this can only be proved by experimental evidence which will differ- 
entiate between motor and intellectual ability; the evidence offered 
here does not pretend to do this. However, my opinion is that as 
we have found the idiot to be not far from the ordinary child as to 
the physical measurements of height, weight, etc., so we shall find 
that in motor control and perceptive powers he is not so far away as 
he seems to be, but that his ability decreases enormously when the 
power to deal with abstract ideas is considered. 



-.r 



z.r 



^r 



u 



"f 



IS 



Hf 



u.r 



.\.s 



-SS 



srf \ 



%s 



»r 



II. f 



13. s 




if.f FIG 31 



M.S 




FIG.32 



Fig. 31. 



Fig. 32. 



The question as to whether there is any correlation between the 
traits observed among idiots, might be raised. But the matter of 
correlation is rather difficult to handle when one is dealing with such 
extreme cases. The usual methods do not hold. Another difficulty 
in answering this question is the fact that my material is hardly 



IMPROVEMENT AMONG DEFECTIVES 85 

definite enough to warrant any decisive conclusion. However, tlie 
results seem to show about the same lack of correlation as is found 
when the question is investigated with regard to ordinary people. 
Were there really much correlation present we should expect it to 
come out rather clearly, as we are dealing with such extreme cases; 
but there seems to be comparatively little. The correlation of mem- 
ory with intelligence is shown in Fig. 31, the solid line showing the 
relationship of the two as it exists and the dotted line showing what 
it should be were the correlation perfect. Fig. 32 shows the same for 
maturity and intelligence tests. At the upper end of the curves in 
each case the correlation is very much closer than at the lower. 
However, as I have already stated, not much can be said on the basis 
of this material. 

§ 15. Improvement among Defectives in a Year's Time 

About a year after these tests were made, they were repeated for 
some of both the defectives and the ordinary children in order to see 
what changes and what degree of change had taken place in each 
class, and how far these changes were comparable. The children 
who were tested a second time were the cases in the Waverley School 
for Feeble-Minded and the group of nine-year-old ordinary children 
from one of the New York City schools. Each child was marked for 
every test and these records compared with his record of a year ago 
in the same test. If the marks were the same each time the improve- 
ment was rated at zero, a higher or lower mark on the second trial 
being indicated by a plus or minus mark in the improvement rating. 
The actual marks may be found in the Appendix, § 18, in Tables 
XXXVII. to XLI. inclusive. Each test was then considered by 
itself and the percentage of the total number of cases which had 
improved and the median amount of improvement for each test was 
found, both for the deficient and the public school children. A com- 
parison of these final marks shows the relative improvement of each 
class in a year's time. Table XXXV. shows these results. 

Comparing the amounts of improvement of the feeble-minded 
and the nine-year-old school children, we find that in two of the 
maturity tests the defectives improve more than normals, namely, 
in the A test, and in memory of unrelated words in which the re- 
spective ratings are 7.7 and 5.0 and -|- 1.7 and — 1.0. In the rest 
of the maturity tests the ordinary children improve more than the 
defectives. In the tests of memory, including the dictation work, 
the defective children improve much more than the other children, 
for their total record gives a change of + 4.4 and that of the others 
only -\- 0.3. That this change is a general one and not caused by 



88 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

great changes in a few cases is shown by the fact that 53 per cent, of 
the defectives improved and only 43 per cent, of the other children. 

TABLE XXXV. 

Defecti\'es Normals 

Per cent, of Median Im- No. of Per cent, of Median Im- No. of 
Improvement provement Cases Improvement provement Cases 

Height, +3.8 34 

Weight, + 3.0 33 

A, 80 +7.7 57 85 + 5.0 14 

a-t, 43 + .9 56 

Kel. Memory, 46 + .2 41 30 — 1.0 10 

Unrel. Memory, 60 + 1.7 43 29 — 1.0 11 

0pp. First (class), 51 +1.2 47 69 + 2.5 13 

0pp. Second (class), 69 +2.7 46 

Genus- Species, 60 + 1.6 50 92 + 6.0 12 

Part- Whole, 60 +1.7 43 • 92 + 4.3 14 

Weight Test, 36 28 68 + 2.6 13 

0pp. First (individual), 71 +3.0 30 69 + 2.5 13 

Dictation, 60 +4.2 28 57 + 1.3 14 

Maze; am't, 28 — 2.0 28 42 — 1.0 14 

Maze; touches, 60 + 5.0 28 35 — 9.5 14 

Blocks, 55 + 1.2 29 85 + 10.0 14 

In the intelligence tests the greater improvement is with the ordi- 
nary children although there is decided improvement shown by the 
feeble-minded. The average of the median of improvement in the 
four intelligence tests for normal children is + ^.3, while for the 
defectives it is + 0.8. 

Looking at the whole series of tests, the contrast between the de- 
fective children and ordinary children is not so marked as might be 
expected ; for in one half of the tests the former improved more than 
the latter and in the other half the reverse is true. In only two of 
the measurements do the defectives show no improvement whatever, 
while the ordinary children show the same lack in three of the tests. 
If the total amount of improvement in all the tests is considered the 
defectives have the advantage, 25.5 to 21.7. But this result is due 
largely to one measurement, in which the defectives have a mark of 
-f- 5.0 and the ordinary children — 9.5. Discarding this one test, 
the greater improvement is found to be with the ordinary children, 
31.2 to 20.5. 

Comparing the improvement of the defective children in one class 
of test with their improvement in others, we find that there is least 
improvement in the results of the intelligence tests, with an average 
improvement of 1.8 ; those of memory rank second with a mark of 
2.2, while the greatest improvement is in the tests of maturity, the 



IMPROVEMENT AMONG DEFECTIVES 87 

average being 2.4. These figures show that the feeble-minded im- 
prove most in those mental traits in which they are most like the 
ordinary child and least in those traits in which they are most unlike. 

In all this matter of improvement the case for the defectives may 
not be quite so good as it seems to be, for the standards which they 
first attained in the tests of maturity, memory and intelligence were 
far below those of ordinary children. For instance, in the first meas- 
urements only 1 per cent, of the defectives exceeded the median 
mark for school children in the maturity tests ; 7 per cent, exceeded 
it in the tests of memory and per cent, exceeded it in the tests of 
intelligence. With this state of things of course there was much 
greater room for improvement in the case of the defectives than there 
was for the public school children. Hence a unit of improvement 
for any of the former may have quite a different value from the 
same amount of improvement as found among the latter. 

The obvious objection to these results as stated is that the com- 
parison made is not a fair one, for nine-year-old normals have been 
compared with defectives of all ages from 7 to 17. However, the 
unfairness has probably been toward the defectives rather than to- 
ward the ordinary children, for the gain between nine and ten years 
of age is usually greater than the improvement between any other 
two years later on. This is especially true if the improvement be- 
tween nine and ten years is compared with that between thirteen 
and fourteen. As it happens there are more of the defectives of 
thirteen and fourteen than of any other two years and there are only 
six nine years old or under. 

The only right way to compare these two classes of children would 
be to compare equal numbers of the same age. As I had not the data 
to do this, my best way was (1) to g'et from the standards found in 
Tables VI. to XXIII. (see § 9) the amount of improvement shown 
in each test by normal children from year to year and (2) to weight 
each figure so obtained by the number of cases of defectives for that 
age. For example, in the A test the average number marked at 
eight years old was 30, and at nine years old 32.6 : the improvement 
in a year's time would be +2.6. There are four of the defective 
children between eight and nine, hence + 2.6 must be weighted by 4. 
Going through for each test in this way, we get a series of measure- 
ments of improvement comparable with those obtained from the 
defectives. The medians may then be reckoned from these measure- 
ments. The comparative records so obtained may be seen in the fol- 
lowing table. 

The results as presented in this table are rather startling, giving 
as they do a total improvement mark exclusive of the measurements 



88 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

of height and weight of 24.1 to the defectives and one of only 8.7 to 
the same number of ordinary children of the same ages. 





TABLE XXXVI. 






Defectives 


NOBMALS 




Median Improvement 


Median Improvement 


Height, 


+ 3.8 


+ 5.2 


Weight, 


+ 3.0 


+ 8.7 


A, 


+ 7.7 


+ 2.8 


a-t. 


+ .9 


+ .9 


Memory, 


+ 1.1 


+ .3 


0pp. First, 


+ 1.2 


+ .5 


0pp. Second, 


+ 2.7 


+ 1.0 


Genus-Species, 


+ 1.6 


+ .1 


Part- Whole, 


+ 1.7 


+ .2 


Weight Test, 





+ .6 


Dictation, 


+ 4.2 


+ .3 


Maze; am't. 


— 2.0 


+ 2.0 


Maze; touches. 


+ 5.0 






However, there are some sources of error which reduce the 
validity of these figures. In the first place, the usual fallacy of 
selection is present ; for children of a certain age are tested and then 
other children a year older are subjected to the same tests, with 
the idea that so we may find out what the first children will do a 
year later. 

In the second place, when the defectives were measured the second 
time the same tests were used, hence it was a second trial and in some 
cases a third trial with the same tests, whereas in following the 
method stated above with the public school children the tests were 
only taken once. That a second and third trial do give an undue 
advantage, at least in some of the tests, the figures in Table XXXV. 
show. 

In the third place, the units compared are not the same, for the 
level reached by some of the ordinary children in the first series of 
tests was very much higher than that reached by the defectives, 
hence the possibility of improvement in one case is much less than in 
the other. A mark of .1 improvement in the genus-species test for 
the public school children may be a higher mark than the 1.6 gained 
by the defectives. Is passing from 96 per cent, to 97 per cent, a 
less gain than passing from 70 per cent, to 75 per cent. 1 We do not 
know. 

These sources of error make the figures stated unreliable so far 
as comparative value is concerned. They must serve simply as sug- 
gestions. Any one who can obtain records from ordinary children 



IMPROVEMENT AMONG DEFECTIVES 89 

for two successive years in the same way that I have from the 
defectives, will then have the data to furnish a reliable answer to 
this problem. However valueless these figures may be from a com- 
parative standpoint, they have a very definite intrinsic value. They 
show definitely that the feeble-minded do improve from year to year 
and that their improvement is no mean one. 

The results so far might mean that those defectives most like 
ordinary people go on improving and that those farthest from normal 
grow more and more unlike, resulting in a divergent series. To 
throw some light on this point the whole number of defectives from 
the Waverley Institution was divided into quarters according to their 
first marks in the intelligence tests. The first quarter was composed 
of those students having the highest marks, the second of those having 
the next highest, and so on in order to those possessing the lowest 
marks. The improvement in these same tests of each group was then 
found. The average improvement of the highest quarter was .8; 
of the second, 1.4 ; of the third, 1.7 ; and of the lowest, 1.0. Those 
defectives most like ordinary people have improved least. The 
lower half of the class has improved more than the upper half, the 
averages standing 13.5 to 11. The results are still more striking if 
one takes simply the extremes and considers the improvement of the 
best five in the group as compared with that of the worst. The 
average improvement of the best five is .6, while that of the worst is 
1.9— three times as great according to the actual figures. Here, as 
before, it must be borne in mind that the units of improvement are not 
the same, consequently the figures measuring the two are not actually 
comparable. This, however, does not alter the fact that the de- 
fectives fairly low in the scale do improve decidedly in a year's time 
—that the improvement is not confined to those who most closely 
approach the ordinary. 

The relative dependence of physical and mental growth has 
always attracted considerable attention from psychologists. The six 
defectives who for the past year grew at the most rapid rate were 
picked out and also the six whose rate of growth was slowest. The 
average improvements of these two groups in the intelligence tests 
were compared. The results are 1.6 for the former and 2.1 for the 
latter. Those who grew most slowly have the greater increase in 
intellectual ability. Limiting this comparison to children of the 
same age, and so taking the twelve-year-olds whose rate of growth 
was most rapid and comparing with them in improvement in intel- 
ligence those whose rate of growth was slowest, the results are more 
striking — .7 for the former, 2.5 for the latter. 



90 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

The general conclusions— which of course are only tentative— of 
this study of improvement are then: (1) That among mental de- 
fectives a decided improvement in mental ability may be looked for 
after the lapse of a year, in some directions even exceeding that 
shown by ordinary school children. (2) That the greatest improve- 
ment is not confined to those defectives most like ordinary indi- 
viduals. (3) That the improvement is not equal in all directions, 
but that some mental functions improve more rapidly and to a 
greater extent than others and that even the functions we designate 
as intellectual show a marked improvement. 

One or two measurements were taken which, although they do 
not bear on this question of improvement, are interesting from an 
historical point of view. 

When the temperature was taken the first time it was found that 
the defectives had, on the average, a lower temperature than the 
ordinary children. This result was corroborated by the second meas- 
urement. Another interesting fact was noted, namely, that in 72 
per cent, of the cases the temperature was lower than at the first 
previous measurement, although at the close of an hour's mental 
work only 44 per cent, of the children had a lower temperature than 
that taken under the same conditions the previous year. Whether 
this fact is significant or what the cause for it may be, there is as yet 
no means of determining. The only difference in the conditions in 
which the measurements were made was a difference in season, as the 
first tests were made at the beginning of the winter and the second 
at the close. Since physicians in general do not note any difference 
in the temperature of normal individuals due to the change of sea- 
sons, it would be rash to suggest this as a cause. 

The eyes of 44 of the defectives were tested by the use of Snellen 's 
E test. The results are as follows : 48 per cent, could read the letter 
correctly at the distance specified ; 52 per cent, could not. In giving 
this same test at the St. Louis Exhibition, Woodworth and Bruner 
found that the average ability of whites under twenty-five years of 
age could be represented by 1.68. As only 48 per cent, of the de- 
fectives could be given a grading of 1.00 the difference is very 
marked. Whether these results are comparable may be questioned, 
but certainly the results are suggestive. It has always been claimed 
that the sense organs of the defectives are very poor. In fact so 
fixed is this notion that it may cause surprise that these figures do 
not show the conditions to be worse. 

In testing the sensitiveness of the skin of 29 defectives with an 
assthesiometer the points of which were 20 mm. apart, the method 



APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO SUBJECT MATTER 91 

used in the Columbia Laboratory was followed. The child was told 
to close his eyes, and the points were pressed in the same order, 
sometimes 1 and sometimes 2 points being used, upon the same part 
of the back of the hand, namely, between the thumb and first finger. 
The results are as follows : Correct four or five times, 27 + per 
cent. ; three, two, one or zero times, 72 -\- per cent. In the same 
test, the records from 250 Columbia students are : Correct four or 
five times, 63 per cent. ; three, two, one or zero times, 37 per cent. 
This evidence supports the theory that the tactile discrimination 
of the feeble-minded is inferior to that of the ordinary person. 

§ 16. Application of the Results to the Subject Matter Used in the 
Education of Defectives 

The foregoing conclusions offer some suggestions looking toward 
changes in the psychology and education of the feeble-minded. The 
difference in 'kind' as treated by so many writers reduces itself to 
a difference of degree of excellence in certain abilities, or perhaps to 
a difference in kind of treatment. Just as cripples, consumptives, 
anemic people, etc., though differing from ordinary people in degree 
of bodily health or strength and needing special kinds of treatment, 
are yet considered as belonging to the class of people in general, but 
as falling toward the lower end of a surface representing the health 
of all kinds of people, so we must consider defectives as differing 
from 'normal' individuals in the degree of ability in various fields, 
though needing, possibly, different kinds of treatment from that 
required by others. This difference in kind of treatment has been 
considered necessary by educators of the feeble-minded since the 
time of Seguin. Most of the emphasis has been laid upon the need 
of developing and training the physical side of the nature; it has 
been held that this bodily training is important because of its effect 
on the mental. Of course it is generally accepted that health of the 
body and health of the mind are closely correlated, that a poorly 
nourished body is a drawback to a certain extent to mental growth 
and development. Indeed, it is upon this theory that the physiolog- 
ical methods for educating the feeble-minded have been based. How- 
ever, from the evidence as to the physical development of the de- 
fectives, presented earlier in this report, it would seem that there is 
not so much need for this kind of training as has been supposed. 
If these children are about as ordinary children in their bodily 
development, then they do not need any more of the physical devel- 
opment than do school children in general. And further, the plea 
for giving this gymnastic work was that it served as a spur on the 



92 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

mental side as well. But if it is proven that from the standpoint 
of bodily health they do not need it— that is, do not need to have it 
emphasized— then it can not be much help on the mental side. A 
further argument in favor of this method has been that it not only 
developed the body but also increased the motor control and coordi- 
nation of muscles and so developed mental control. If the seeming 
lack of muscular control is not so much a matter of muscles as it is 
a matter of mind, and if the benefit on the mental side from these 
exercises is gained because of the promptness and exactitude de- 
manded in all class-gymnastic work, and is not a matter of muscular 
development and coordination, then it may be that this mental devel- 
opment could come just as well through some other means. The 
defectives probably need gymnastic work and physical training for 
the same reasons as any other set of children living the institutional 
life, but not because of any special lack of bodily health or develop- 
ment which is characteristic of them as a class. 

The lower grades of mental defectives probably do need physical 
training— not for any effect it may have on the mental development, 
but for its own sake. In many instances the first thing necessary in 
the training of these children is to gain their attention, to arouse 
some sort of interest, and to this end the physical exercise offers the 
best means. Again in a custodial case when the end aimed at is 
simply cleanly habits and ability to care for himself, the prime 
requisite is that the defective have control of his muscles at least to 
some degree — an end reached by physical training. If, as has been 
suggested, the defectives have a lower temperature than normal, this 
sluggishness of circulation is the cause of all sorts of skin diseases, 
ulcers, boils, etc., and especially in winter weather, when outdoor 
occupation is at a minimum, physical training offers a means of 
stirring up the circulation through brisk exercise and therefore has 
a beneficial effect on the whole system. So far the contention has 
been physical exercise for its own sake, but there is one way in which 
the physical training may be a direct help on the mental side. Self- 
confidence brought about by success is absolutely essential to prog- 
ress; continual lack of success must result in a static condition and 
finally in retrogression. The physical field is sometimes the one in 
which a child may gain his first success most easily — it may be merely 
the grasping of a dumb-bell, the fastening of a button, the climbing 
of one rung of the ladder or the keeping step with others. If this is 
true then it is the first step of progress on the mental side, the foun- 
dation-stone upon which self-confidence may be built, the touchstone 
of the child's ambition no matter how crude or elemental it may be. 



APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO SUBJECT MATTER 93 

To the extent that this is true, to that extent may the physical aid 

the mental training. i, • i 

The field for the initial step, however, is not always the physical. 
It has been found that the social field offers great opportunities for 
the stirring up of dormant faculties or for the arousing of interests. 
Hence entertainments of all kinds, dances and displays form a large 
feature in the education of the feeble-minded. 

Idiots seem to be like other children in the small amount of cor- 
relation that exists between various traits. Despite this apparent 
lack of correlation, public opinion insists that some individuals do 
excel in many ways and that some idiots are inferior m almost all 
directions Some normal persons have at once quickness of percep- 
tion concentration of attention, wealth of associations and power m 
abstract and logical thinking in excess of their fellows just as some 
of the idiots are far below their comrades in all these abilities, ihis 
fact may be explained by the great number and partial independence 
of the causes making human nature. In the millions of occurrences 
and combinations of mental and physical traits found among man- 
kind chance will account for a certain number of combinations ot 
the best of each trait. And so by chance there should exist indi- 
viduals who do excel in several, probably in many, abilities, and thus 
we have the genius. The same reasoning will account for all grades 
of intelligence down to the lowest idiot. Chance may cause the 
occurrence together of certain traits and the absence of others m 
such a way that the resulting mentality is that of the so-called feeble- 
minded However, there should logically be more feeble-minded 
than 'eminent' men in the world, for disease must help m lowering 
a man's grade but it seldom helps to raise him in the scale of human 
intelligence. Among idiots, then, are all sorts of combmations of 
mental and physical traits just as there are among people m general, 
but the tendency of that combination is to pull them down to the 
lower extreme of human ability. As Ireland says, -Idiocy or im- 
becility comprehends cases quite distinct in etiology, pathology and 
treatment, which, however, unite to produce the deficiency of intel- 
lectual, nervous and muscular power." Perhaps it would be closer 
to the facts if it read, 'which, however, may unite to produce, etc. 
This fact of the lack of definite lines of division among idiots 
themselves and between idiots and people in general, is realized by 
many of those who have most dealing with them-those who prac- 
tically live among them in the institutions. Dr. Fernald, ot^the 
Institution for the Feeble-Minded at Waverley, Mass., says In 
theory the differences between these various degrees of deficiency are 
marked and distinct, while in practise the lines of separation are 



94 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

entirely indefinite and individuals as they grow to adult life may be 
successively classed in different grades. ' ' These lines of division are 
hair lines and indefinite ; if not, why do physicians disagree often as 
to whether a child brought to them for treatment is an idiot or not ? 
There seems to be nothing peculiar and special which marks an idiot 
off from people in general and by which he can always be known. 
The traits of most value from a diagnostic point of view, namely, 
evidences of the lack of intellectual ability, are those which locate the 
individual at the fag end of the ordinary curve of distribution and 
consequently are those least likely to mark him out apart from others. 
If all the papers of the idiots tested were mixed with those of the 
school children, there would be nothing to mark them as those of a 
separate class. Were any one required to pick them out he would 
have to follow just the same method and judge in just the same way 
as he would do were he picking out the brightest among ordinary 
children or the mediocre or the dull. This idea probably comes as a 
shock to many, for we have used the words 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' 
to designate an individual entirely apart from people in general and 
one so very different from other individuals as to be forever identi- 
fied. But this is not so. I was very much surprised at the common 
sense, judgment and thoughtfulness of many of the children with 
whom I came in contact in the institutions. 

This point of view must have some definite bearing on the general 
problem of the education of these children. The method most widely 
accepted is the one already mentioned, the physiological method, 
which was suggested by Seguin. Except for the strong emphasis 
which is placed upon the physical education, the method seems in 
general to be the kindergarten method as we know it in the public 
schools. As the idiots have been so often regarded as a special class, 
their education has come to be regarded as special too, being con- 
sidered entirely distinct and different from that of ordinary children. 
It can be easily understood that this must be the case were the fol- 
lowing views to be held in the extreme: "The memory is nearly 
always weak and unreliable. The faculty of observation limited 
within the more elementary lines and attention is both difficult to 
fix and hard to hold without unusual effort on the part of the 
teacher. The imagination is very crude. Such children are capable 
of the most meager abstract thinking, and their powers of judgment 
aberrant to a degree ; they act impulsively, and without reason, be- 
cause the fundamental principles of potentiality in this respect are 
inactive— inert. "—Osborne. "Abstract ideas and intellectual per- 
ceptions are dull or wanting and the notions of foresight, prudence 
and self-preservation are deficient or feebly developed. The memory 



APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO SUBJECT MATTER 95 

is usually weak. . . . The power of attention is defective or often 
absent, as are the faculties requiring exercise of the will. . . . The 
judgment cannot be depended upon. "— F. Beach. 

But it seems that these children are not so very different from 
other children and that consequently there is no reason why their 
education need be. As Dr. Fernald points out, "As compared with 
the education of normal children, it is a difference of degree and not 
of kind. With these feeble-minded children, the instruction must 
begin on a lower plane, the progress is slower and the pupils cannot 
be carried so far." That the instruction must begin on a lower 
plane and that it must be of a kind that will appeal to the senses 
rather than to the intellect goes almost without saying. But whether, 
as the child grows older, it should retain that characteristic is an- 
other matter. Certain it is that the idiot is more easily reached by 
such training, but whether it is better for him in the long run and 
whether it is impossible to reach him in the same way that we do 
ordinary children, is not fully decided. If the idiot is simply at the 
extreme of the ordinary distribution of ability and is characterized 
by a sluggishness of disposition which may affect both mental and 
physical advance and development, then what he needs is stirring 
up, encouragement and, if need be, even forcing in the mental field 
as well as in the physical. Theoretically there may be no good 
reason why he should not have the intellectual work which is re- 
quired of school children in general. It may have to be given a very 
little at a time, with more repetition, illustration and amplification, 
but still it could probably be of the same general character that we 
find in the best schools. Of course the objection is raised that idiots 
fail in appreciating abstract ideas; but so do a large percentage of 
ordinary children. How much do the school children really under- 
stand and appreciate of technical grammar or mathematical geog- 
raphy if taught in the grammar grades? Here again the difference 
is simply a matter of degree. It is very probable that could the 
idiot once be taught to write and read he might gain more and 
progress more quickly than he does by the present methods of 
education. 

Theoretically there may be no objections to giving the feeble- 
minded something more of the intellectual training, but practically 
there may be. The main object in the education of the mentally 
deficient seems to be to fit him to become self-supporting. Although 
he might be able to do more intellectual work, yet he could never 
excel in the field of intelligence and would probably never be able 
to support himself by the pursuit of any occupation requiring much 
mental work. For the same reason, then, that in the public schools 



96 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

Latin and Greek, teclinical grammar and much of mathematics are 
becoming of less importance, and manual training, domestic science 
and domestic art are being substituted for them— for the reason that 
the useful as well as the cultural side of life is more and more 
appealing to educators— for that same reason it may be well to cut 
out most of the intellectual work in the training of the idiot and 
emphasize the hand work. This is the method followed in many- 
institutions; the industrial side in its various phases is emphasized. 
It may be this emphasis rather than any natural aptitude which 
accounts for the fact mentioned by Ireland, when he says, ' ' It strikes 
us that a constructive or mechanical turn is more frequently pre- 
served among idiots than any other gift." In some institutions we 
do find the feeble-minded studying physical geography, composition, 
music, painting and arithmetic, but in many, and among them some 
of the most advanced, it is the laundry, cooking and sewing for the 
girls and the carpentry, gardening and painting for the boys, to 
which most of the attention is given. As these individuals can never 
be leaders among men, it seems the best plan to have them learn a 
trade rather than to have them bother over the more intellectual 
kind of work. However, we should remember that this is probably 
a matter of expediency rather than one of necessity, and there may 
be much that is good on the other side. 

It is certainly true that the more like ordinary people these feeble- 
minded are treated the more like people in general they will become. 
As they tend to be more immature than other children they are open 
to suggestion for a longer period of time. They should have schools, 
churches, entertainments, trades and the like, just as ordinary people 
do. They need not be mixed in with people in general, but in every 
case they should be made to feel as nearly like other people as 
possible. 

§ 17. Application of the Results to the Methods Used in the 
Education of Defectives 

In the present-day criticism of the modern educational methods 
are three points, which to my mind have vital bearing on the educa- 
tion of the feeble-minded in the field of physical, mental and indus- 
trial training. In the first place, our best educators believe that 
but a short time should elapse between an act and its result, and that 
in most cases the result should be definitely pleasurable if the act is 
a desirable one. The younger the child, the greater the force of this 
rule. Taking up the first point, if much time elapse between the 
act and the result, whether that result be pleasurable or painful, the 



APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO METHODS 97 

result has lost much of its efficacy, for the child has forgotten the act. 
If not completely forgotten, yet the impression is comparatively dim 
by reason of all that has happened between. A result to be of value 
as influencing a future act must be so closely connected with that act 
that the two ideas have to the mind something of the same vividness ; 
and close sequence is the best means of securing this end. The second 
fact, namely, that pleasure should follow an act if that act is de- 
sirable, seems to be one of nature's fundamental laws. The simplest 
method, the animal method of learning, is the one which has been 
called 'the selection of accidental successes,' and the selecting factor 
is always pleasure. Animals learn to do a trick when some reward 
is offered, and the movements which bring the reward are the ones 
stamped in. If the result be indifferent the act is almost as likely 
to be obliterated as to remain. This method combined with imitation 
is the one adopted by children and if the results are to be successful 
the element of pleasure must enter in. When 'the act' becomes a 
mental one instead of a physical, the same law holds. Here the 
pleasure may be of a higher grade, a word of approbation, a smile, 
an extra piece of work to do, but reward in some form is essential. 
This rule holds good with the training of ordinary children and, 
therefore, must hold doubly true of these very children— the de- 
fectives. In all their training, physical, mental, moral or industrial, 
a reward of some kind must be forthcoming— the sooner the better 
if the act, whether chiefly mental or physical, is desired as a habit. 
The second point of note is the influence brought to bear by the 
psychology of memory on our methods of teaching. The memory of 
any event or fact depends upon two factors, the native retentiveness 
of the brain substance itself and the number of associates which the 
particular fact has in terms of 'brain paths.' The former factor 
can not be improved. Every individual is limited so far as memory 
is concerned by the kind of brain with which he was endowed at 
birth. If it is easily impressed and also one which retains this im- 
pression, other things being equal, that person will have a good mem- 
ory. This being true, it seems rather a poor way to improve the 
memory, either of ordinary children or of defectives, to employ the 
method of repetition, so endeavoring to hammer a fact home by mere 
brute force. The better method, certainly, would be to work along 
the line of the second factor determining memory, namely, to increase 
the number of associates. The more clues there are connected with 
any one fact, the more likely will it be that that fact will come to 
mind when wanted. Now this method seems particularly applicable 
to the defective class of children in the light of what we know of 
the brain development of the feeble-minded. Hammarberg found— 
7 



98 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

and no one has contradicted his statement— that the brains of de- 
fectives as wholes or in parts were poorly developed, not so much in 
the sense that the cells were smaller or necessarily ill shaped, but 
that they lacked the arborizations and the multitudes of associative 
fibers which go to make up a complex cortex, a cortex of the kind 
which is accompanied by intelligence. This fact of brain anatomy 
seems to be corroborated by the results noted in § 14, namely, that 
the greatest divergence in ability between ordinary and defective 
children was in the test of power of association. This, to my mind, 
is the test of intelligence— a very rough one, but one which will point 
out those individuals who fall at the extreme low end of human 
ability, those who fall in the class known as defectives, A dozen or 
more different traits have been pointed out by various writers as the 
essence of feeble-mindedness— lack of judgment, lack of will-power, 
lack of imagination, or lack of ability to look at consequences, besides 
the lack of ability to form abstract ideas, etc., etc. But the under- 
lying cause of all these lacks is this inability to form associates. The 
specialization of this ability helps us to understand those defectives 
who are above par in some one particular branch. The knowledge 
of this fact helps in the training of these defectives. Physiology 
shows that a high rate of intelligence goes with a complex cortex, 
that the existence of many associations and the like is paralleled by 
an increased arborization; but which is cause and which is effect no 
one knows. However, we do know that any one may increase his 
memory in any line simply by increasing the number of associates in 
that field. The resulting suggestion is not to depend only upon 
repetition to fix facts but to let the same fact be met in a dozen ways 
instead of simply in one. Of course in the case of some of the lower 
grades of defectives the process would have to be very slow and very 
simple. But certainly what the defectives need is an increased power 
of association in its broadest sense ; and when nature has provided 
two ways of securing such power, one of which is much narrower 
than the other, it behooves us to use both and certainly not to neglect 
the broader of the two. 

The third point of modern criticism which was mentioned as 
particularly adapted to the defectives grows directly out of this and 
concerns the facts or associates to be given to the children in school. 
Shall we consider them simply as storehouses and pack away in their 
brains everything that they may possibly need at some future date ? 
Or shall we consider them as living beings, living as children a life 
as full and rich as they ever will live as adults, and hence give them 
in school and home facts which they really need and in the way in 
which they will need them? As evidence that the second point of 



APPLICATION OF RESULTS TO METHODS 99 

view is the one which is being accepted more and more in our public 
schools, witness the presence of manual training, domestic science, 
nature study and the absence of much of the Latin, Greek and mathe- 
matics of fifty years ago. Psychology certainly supports this point 
of view. Interest and attention— and if attention then memory, 
understanding, appreciation, etc.— go hand in hand. Voluntary or 
forced attention is of value largely because interest may result — if it 
does not, the attention passes to something else. Now interest is 
dependent largely on use. 'Consciousness is in its very nature im- 
pulsive.' Anything that the child or adult needs— finds a use for— 
must of necessity be interesting; for it brings pleasure in some de- 
gree. The outcome of this must be, to preserve the child, of what- 
ever degree of intelligence he may be, from dry facts for which he 
has no use, for to him they are not facts! They can only be artificial 
and his interest can not be in them to any degree ; his attention must 
be forced and his understanding and memory of them must be super- 
ficial. Give him living facts, things that he is really wanting to 
know about— if necessary create or make felt the need, but by all 
means have the need and therefore the interest present! This per- 
haps is an extreme statement of the case for the ordinary child with 
our artificial requirements of modern civilization, but for the de- 
fective it is not extreme. It is the only possible means of progress 
for him. In his training let the facts which he gets, the habits which 
he forms, be living, vital ones; let everything function then and 
there— the sooner the better. Let the result be pleasurable as often 
as may be, so as to reach interest and through that medium the 
understanding. 

The question which has always confronted the student of de- 
fectives and which still confronts him is 'what is the ultimate end 
of the feeble-minded ? ' The answer has been stated in decided terms 
by some writers— "We can not cure what is not a disease but a de- 
fect, and that which the cradle rocks the spade will cover."— Barr. 

But to-day we realize that between ordinary children and de- 
fectives there is a difference not of kind but of degree, that there may 
be every grade of deficiency, 'passing insensibly into ordinary intel- 
ligence'— 'that the lines separating one class of deficiency from an- 
other are hair lines and artificial in the extreme.' Hence we may 
feel that the case is not quite so hopeless. When we see the weak 
wills, poor imaginative powers, poor memories, inability to deal with 
abstract subjects possessed by people considered normal in the world 
to-day, the thought forces itself upon us that probably we are most 
of us defective in some field and to some degree. We believe that 
for us all there is a possibility of improvement, and so we find there 



100 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

is hope for the defective. Few of us ever expect to reach the status 
of eminence, but some of us may ; and so may some of those classed 
as feeble-minded or defective reach ultimately the class spoken of as 
normal. Some from the London defective classes have done so. For 
many of them, there must remain only custodial care on one hand, 
the colony on the other. It is all a matter of degree. The danger 
is to think that we definitely know the point which may be reached 
at the higher end. Until we know more about the psychology, the 
physiology and the chemistry of human life at its lower extreme, it 
is unwise to prophesy the possibilities. 

Until then all we can do is to have as high ideals as are practical 
and to develop the individual to the highest possible standard— which 
standard must be discovered in the process, not determined upon 
beforehand— physically, mentally and morally. 

In summing up this whole matter I would say that the difference 
between idiots and other people is one of degree and not of kind. 
The same difference exists between the very bright among school 
children and the mediocre, and between the mediocre and the stupid, 
as exists between the idiot and the ordinary person, and in some cases 
the former differences are greater in degree than the latter. 

Consequently we must criticize the methods of educating idiots 
from the same standpoint and use the same arguments either for or 
against that we do in criticizing the methods and curricula used in 
the general education of the masses. They are not special and 
peculiar in any other sense than the one in which the dull, stupid 
child is peculiar when compared with the bright, quick child. What 
in education is not good for the idiot is probably not good also for 
at least 10 per cent, of school children at large. 



APPENDIX 

§ 18. Tables Showing the Improvement of the Defectives in a 

Year's Time 

TABLE XXXVII. 



No. 


] 


at. 


Wt. 


A. 


A. 


a-t. 


a^t. 


62 








+ 6.0 




— 1.0 




63 








+ 7.0 


+ 8.0 


0.0 


0.0 


64 


+ 


4.5 


+ 2.0 


H- 4.0 


+ 11.0 


0.0 


0.0 


65 


+ 


2.8 


+ 10.0 




+ 26.0 


+ 5.0 


— 7.0 


66 








+ 15.0 


+ 9.0 


— 1.0 


— 6.0 


67 


+ 


4.0 




+ 5.0 


+ 19.0 


0.0 


9.0 


68 


+ 


3.3 


+ 6.0 


— 2.0 


— 6.0 


0.0 


+ 5.0 


69 








+ 17.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 9.0 


— 2.0 


70 








-\-26.0 




0.0 


0.0 


71 






— 21.0 


— 9.0 




0.0 




72 












+ 12.0 




73 








+ 16.0 


+ 7.0 


0.0 


— 3.0 


74 








+ 25.0 


+ 9.0 


0.0 


0.0 


75 








— 2.0 




0.0 




76 


+ 


1.3 


+ L6 






0.0 




77 
















80 


■+ 


1.3 


+ 2.5 


+ 5.0 


+ 11.0 


— 3.0 


0.0 


81 


+ 


5.8 


+ 15.0 


+ 15.0 


+ 13.0 


— 1.0 


+ 1.0 


82 








+ 11.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 13.0 


+ 13.0 


83 








+ 8.0 


+ 25.0 


+ 10.0 


+ 7.0 


84 








+ 18.0 


+ 3.0 


0.0 


+ 4.0 


85 








— 2.0 


— 1.0 


+ 13.0 


+ 8.0 


87 


+ 


.8 


+ 1.4 


+ 20.0 


+ 19.0 


0.0 


+ 12.0 


88 


+ 


3.3 


+ 5.5 


+ 15.0 


+ 14.0 


+ 10.0 


+ 4.0 


89 


+ 


2.5 


+ 6.0 


+ 16.0 


+ 20.0 


+ 6.0 


+ 5.0 


90 








0.0 


— 2.0 


— 2.0 


— 2.0 


91 


+ 


5.1 


+ 2.7 


+ 7.0 




+ 8.0 




92 


+ 


8.3 


+ 10.5 






+ 6.0 




93 


+■ 


1.2 


+ 6.0 


— 12.0 




+ 3.0 


+ 7.0 


H 


■+ 


3.5 


+ .1 










96 


+ 


.5 


— 1.1 


+ 12.0 




+ 13.0 




97 








— 3.0 




— 5.0 




98 








+ 6.0 


0.0 


+ 5.0 


0.0 


99 


+ 


5.3 


+ 5.5 


+ 5.0 








IdO 


;+ U.3 


+ 3.1 ' 


— 2.0 




— 2.0 




101 


+ 


4.2 


+ 6.4 


+ 21.0 


+ 12.0 


+ 14.0 


+ 15.0 


103 




0.0 


— 1.5 


+ 1.0 




+ 4.0 




104 




0.0 


— 2.5 


+ 14.0 


+ 33.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 8.0 


105 


— 


1.2 


— 7.0 


+ 6.0 


+ 8.0 


+ 5.0 


+ 5.0 


106 


+ 


3.3 


— 2.5 


— 14.0 








107 








+ 2.0 
101 


+ 9.0 


0.0 


+ 1.0 



102 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Ht. 


wt. 


A. 


A. 


a-t. 


a-t. 


108 


+ 


3.7 


+ 


2.1 


+ 5.0 


+ 6.0 


0.0 




0.0 


109 


+ 


2.0 


— 


2.9 


1+ 12.0 










110 


+ 


2.0 


+ 


1.1 


+ 1.0 




— 11.0 






ill 


+ 


1.2 


— 


3.0 


1+ 8.0 




— 8.0 






112 


'+ 


6.1 


+ 


2.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 13.0 


— 3.0 


— 


1.0 


113 


+ 


2.0 


+ 


6.0 


+ 13.0 


+ 15.0 


0.0 




0.0 


m 


'+ 


2.5 


— 


.6 


+ 22.0 




+ U.0 






115 










+ 2.0 


— 3.0 


0.0 




0.0 


116 










+ 10.0 


+ 14.0 


+ 4.0 


— 


2.0 


117 


+ 


5.1 


+ 


4.0 


— 1.0 










119 


+ 


Jt.6 


.+ 


3.1 


+ 9.0 


+ 19.0 


+ 1.0 


— 


3.0 


120 


+ 


.8 


+ 


3.0 


— 19.0 


+ 25.0 


— 11.0 


+ 


3.0 


m 


+ 


3.7 


+ 


4.20 












125 


+ 


.8 


— 


3.5 


+ 7.0 


+ 1.0 


— 2.0 


+' 


3.0 


126 


+ 


4.8 


+ 


1.0 


+ 9.0 




+ 2.0 






127 










+ 5.0 


+ 8.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 


5.0 


128 




0.0 


+ 


1.3 


+ 8.0 


+ 3.0 


0.0 


+ 


5.0 


129 










+ 18.0 


+ 11.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 


5.0 


130 










+ 15.0 


+ 35.0 


+ 23.0 


+ 


4.0 


131 










+ 7.0 










132 


+ 


.7 


+ 


2.5 


+ 5.0 


+ 20.0 


+ 6.0 


+ 


5.0 


133 


.+ 


1.2 


— 


.1 


'■+ 7.0 


+ 12.0 


+ 2.0 






134 


+ 


7.5 


+ 


5.7 


+ 8.0 




0.0 






138 ■ 






'+ 


l.S 













TABLE XXXVIII. 



No. 


Part-Whole. 


Genus-Species. 


Opposite. 
1st. 


Opposite. 
2nd. 


Memory, 
(rel.) 


Memory 
(unrel.). 


62 


+ .5 


— 2.0 




+ 3.5 


— 2.0 


— 3.0 


63 


— 1.0 


+ 2.0 


— 1.0 


0.0 


-4.0 


0.0 


64 


— 2.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 1.5 


— 4.0 


+ 3.0 


65 


+ 3.0 


+ 8.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 4.5 


— 4.0 


+ 5.0 


66 


+ 2.0 


+ 6.0 


+ .5 


+ 11.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 2.0 


67 


— .5 


+ 3.5 


— 1.0 


— 2.0 






68 


+ 4.0 


— 1.0 


+ 5.0 


+ 3.5 


0.0 


— 1.0 


69 


— 2.5 


0.0 


+ 7.0 


— 1.5 


+ 2.0 


+ 5.0 


70 


+ 4.0 






+ .5 






71 




— 1.0 


+ 1.0 




— 2.0 


— 3.0 


72 




— 1.0 






-4.0 


+ 5.0 


73 


0.0 


+ 3.5 


— 1.5 


— .5 


+ 5.0 


+ 3.0 


75 




+ 4.5 


+ 4-0 




— 2.0 


+ 5.0 


76 














77 




— .5 


— 3.0 




— 1.0 


+ 2.0 


80 


+ 1.0 


+ 5.0 


+ 2.5 


+ 2.0 


0.0 


— 2.0 


81 


+ 1.0 


— 1.0 


— 7.5 


— 1.0 


0.0 


+ 1.0 


82 


+ 5.0 


+ 1.0 


— 8.0 


+ 7.0 


+ 6.0 


+ 1.0 


83 


0.0 


+ 1.0 


— 3.0 


+ 9.5 


— 1.0 


— 6.0 


84 


+ 3.0 


+ 4.0 


0.0 


+ 8.5 


+ 2.0 


+ 2.0 


85 




+ 2.0 


— 2.0 


+ 9.5 


+ 4.0 


+ 6.0 


87 


0.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 8.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 4.0 



TABLES SHOWING IMPROVEMENT OF DEFECTIVES 



103 



No. 


Part-Whole. 


Genus-Species. 


Opposite. 1 


Opposite. 




Memory. 


Memory 








1st. 


2nd. 




(rel.) 


(unrel. ). 


88 


:•+ 2.5 


+ 2.0 


— 5.0 


0.0 








89 


+ 2.0 


+ 1.5 


— 1.0 


+ 5.0 




+ 1.0 


+ 4.0 


90 


+ 4.0 


+ 1.5 


+ 6.0 


0.0 




— 3.0 


— 2.0 


91 


— .5 






+ 3.0 






+ 1.0 


92 


+ 6.0 


+ 8.0 


— 2.0 


+ 3.0 




— 3.0 


— 1.0 


93 


— 3.5 


+ 1.0 


+ 6.0 


+ 2.0 




0.0 


+ 6.0 


96 




— 1.0 


+ 1.5 










97 




+ .5 


— 1.0 










98 


0.0 


+ 1.0 


— 1.0 


+ 1.0 




— 1.0 


+ 2.0 


100 




+ 6.0 


+ -i-o 










101 


O.G 


+ 7.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 2.0 




+ 1.0 


0.0 


103 


+ 1.5 






+ 5.0 








104 


+ 3.0 


0.0 


+ 1.5 


+ 3.5 




+ 3.0 


— 2.0 


105 


+ 5.0 


+ 1.5 


+ 1.0 


+ 3.5 




+ 2.0 


0.0 


107 


+ 1.0 


— .5 


— 1.5 


+ 9.0 




— 4.0 


— 3.0 


108 


+ 2.0 


+ 5.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 8.0 




+ 3.0 


+ 2.0 


109 




+ 2.0 




+ 1.0 








110 








+ 1.0 








111 


+ 4.0 


0.0 


+ 2.0 










112 


+ 2.0 


— 4.0 


0.0 


— .5 




+ 4.0 


0.0 


113 


— 3.0 


+ 2.5 


— 1.0 


+ 5.0 




— 3.0 


+ 1.0 


m 




0.0 


+ 4.0 






+ 3.0 


+ 5.0 


115 


+ 3.0 


0.0 


— .5 


+ .5 




— 2.0 


+ 3.0 


116 


+ 3.5 


— 4.0 


+ 6.5 


+ 2.0 




— 1.0 


— 1.0 


119 


+ 6.0 






0.0 






0.0 


120 


— 6.5 


— 5.0 


— 3.0 


— 1.0 








125 


— 3.5 


+ 3.0 


+ 2.0 


0.0 








127 


+ 1.0 


— 2.5 


+ 6.5 


— .5 




+ 1.0 


+ 1.0 


128 


— 1.0 


-4.0 


0.0 


+ 3.5 




+ 3.0 


+ 1.0 


129 


— 1.0 


+ 6.0 


— 1.5 


0.0 




— 2.0 


— 1.0 


130 


0.0 


0.0 


— 7.5 


+ 5.0 




+ 2.0 


— 2.0 


131 


+ 1.0 






+ 8.5 








132 


+ 6.0 


+ 8.0 


— 2.0 


+ 3.0 




— 3.0 


— 1.0 


133 


+ 5.0 


— 1.0 


+ 1.0 


0.0 




— 2.0 


+ 2.0 


m 




+ 3.0 


— 1.0 






+ 1.0 


+ 5.0 


135 




TABLE 


1 XXXIX. 










No. 


Dictation. 












Total. 




ist. 


2nd. 


3rd. 




4th. 




62 


+ 1.0 


+ 5.0 


— 11.0 








— 5.0 


63 


+ 1.0 


+ 1.0 


0.0 




+ 12.0 


+ 14.0 


64 


+ 4.0 


+ 6.0 


— 1.0 




— 


4.0 


+ 5.0 


65 


0.0 


— 1.0 


+ 4.0 






0.0 


+ 3.0 


66 


+ 2.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 6.0 




+ 


7.0 


+ 17.0 


67 


0.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 3.0 




— 


1.0 


+ 4.0 


68 


— 3.0 


0.0 


— 6.0 




— 


8.0 


— 17.0 


69 


+ 1.0 


— 1.0 


— 1.0 




+ 


1.0 


0.0 


70 


0.0 


— 3.0 


+ 10.0 




+ 


2.0 


+ 9.0 


71 


— 6.0 


+ 1.0 


- 4.0 




— 


2.0 


— 11.0 


72 


0.0 


— 1.0 


+ 3.0 




+ 


1.0 


+ 3.0 



104 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Dictation. 










Total. 




1st. 


2nd. 


3rd. 


4th. 




73 


-4.0 


— 3.0 


+ 6.0 


— 


4.0 


— 5.0 


U 


— 2.0 


— 1.0 


+ 1.0 






— 2.0 


75 


— LO 


+ 4.0 


0.0 


+ 


1.0 


+ 4.0 


80 


+ 5.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 3.0 




0.0 


+ 11.0 


81 


+ 1.0 


0.0 


+ 2.0 


+ 


1.0 


+ 4.0 


82 


+ 2.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 1.0 






+ 4.0 


83 


+ 3.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 2.0 


— 


2.0 


+■ 4.0 


84 


0.0^ 


0.0 


+ 12.0 


+ 


2.0 


+ 14.0 


85 


+ 2.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 9.0 


— 


2.0 


+ 12.0 


87 


— 1.0 


+ 1.0 


— 7.0 


— 


4.0 


— 11.0 


88 


0.0 


0.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 


5.0 


+ 8.0 


89 


0.0 


+ 1.0 


+ 3.0 


+ 


5.0 


+ 9.0 


90 


— 4.0 


+ 4.0 


— 6.0 


— 


8.0 


— 14.0 


91 


+ 2.0 


— 3.0 


— 3.0 


+ 


3.0 


— 1.0 


93 


0.0 


+ 5.0 


— 4.0 


+ 


9.0 


+ 10.0 


123 


&1.0 


+ 5.0 


— 8.0 


+ 


1.0 


— 1.0 


124 


— 2.0 


+ 3.0 


— 14.0 




0.0 


— 13.0 



TABLE XL. 



No. 


Pulse. 


Temperature. 


Wt. Test. 


Block Test. 


Maze. 
Amt. 


Maze. 
Touches. 


62 


— 20.0 


-2.4 


— 9.9 


0.0 


— 3.0 


— 6.0 


6S 


— 18.0 


— 1.2 


— 13.9 


0.0 


0.0 


+ 2L0 


64 


+ 22.0 


+ 1.2 


+ 1.1 


— 3.0 


— 2.0 


+ 4.0 


65 


+ 21.0 


— 0.2 


+ 1.1 


+ 12.5 


+ 0.5 


+ 2.0 


66 


— 32.0 


+ 0.6 


- 4.1 


+ 3.5 


— 2.0 


+ 9.0 


67 


— 9.0 


-0.4 


+ 4.7 


— 3.0 


— 9.5 


+ 83.0 


69 


— 13.0 


+ 2.8 


— 4.7 


+ 7.5 


— 2.5 


+ 1.0 


70 


+ 43.0 


+ 0.4 


— 5.3 


+ 17.0 


— 12.0 


+ 43.0 


71 






— 1.5 


— 6.0 


+ 5.5 


— 24.0 


72 


+ 13.0 


— 2.2 


— 6.8 


+ 12.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 3.0 


73 


— 7.0 


— S.O 


+ 4.7 


— 10.5 


+ 2.5 


— 10.0 


n 


— 20.0 


— 2.8 


— 13.3 


+ 1.0 






75 


0.0 


— 1.2 


— 6.4 


— 1.5 


— 3.0 


- 4.0 


77 


— s.o 


— 0.8 


— 9.9 


— 10.5 


0.0 


— 13.0 


80 


— 10.0 


— 2.0 


+ 2.5 


+ 4.5 


+ 5.0 


— 26.0 


81 


+ 10.0 


— 0.8 


— 1.6 


+ 1.0 


— 3.5 


— 8.0 


82 


+ 5.0 


— 3.2 


0.0 


+ 1.0 


— 8.0 


— 3.0 


83 


+ 9.0 


— 1.6 


+ 2.5 


+ 0.5 


+ 10.5 


— 60.0 


84 


— 1.0 


— 2.2 


— 11.5 


+ 9.0 


— 7.0 


+ 26.0 


85 


—14.0 


— 1.6 


— 4.8 


+ 3.0 


- 4.5 


+ 27.0 


87 


— 25.0 


+ 2.2 


— 12.4 


+ 9.5 


+ 9.0 


— 11.0 


88 


+ 1.0 


— 0.6 


+ 1.5 


— 2.0 


— 2.0 


+ 2.0 


89 


— 17.0 


— 0.6 


+ 5.6 


— 16.0 


— 1.5 


+ 15.0 


90 


— 21.0 


— 1.2 


+ 17.6 


— 18.0 


0.0 


+ 5.0 


91 


— S.O 


— 1.2 


— 13.3 


+ 3.0 


- 4.0 


+ 6.0 


93 


— 15.0 


+ 1.4 




0.0 


+ 11.0 


— 29.0 


123 


- 4.0 


— 1.8 


- 4.5 


+ 1.5 


— 10.5 


+ 33.0 


124 


— 12.0 


— 0.2 


— 0.9 


+ 5.0 


0.0 


+ 16.0 


127 


— 6.0 


— 0.2 


+ 1.0 


— 1.0 


— 9.0 


+ 42.0 



TABLES SHOWING IMPROVEMENT OF DEFECTIVES 105 





TABLE 


XLI. 




No. 


Intelligence. 


Memory. 


Maturity. 


62 


+ 0.5 


— 3.5 


— 1.9 


63 


0.0 


+ 5.0 


— L7 


64 


+ 0.3 


+ 0.5 


+ 3.7 


65 


+ 4.6 


— 0.5 


+ 4.3 


66 


+ 4.8 


+ 8.5 


+ 2.9 


67 


0.0 


+ 4.0 


+ 3.2 


68 


+ 2.8 


— 8.5 


— 1.0 


69 


+ 0.7 


0.0 


+ 6.5 


70 


+ 2.2 


+ 9.0 


+ 6.8 


71 


0.0 


— 6.5 


— 3.3 


72 


— 1.0 


— 0.5 


+ 3.4 


7S 


— 0.3 


0.0 


+ 5.9 


74 


+ 3.6 


— 0.5 


+ 4.6 


75 


+ 4.2 


+ 1.0 


— 0.8 


77 


— 1.7 


— 1.0 


— 2.6 


80 


+ 2.6 


+ 5.5 


+ 0.6 


81 


— 2.1 


+ 2.0 


+ 3.3 


82 


+ 1.2 


+ 5.0 


+ 6.2 


83 


+ 1.8 


+ 1.5 


+ 3.6 


84 


+ 3.8 


+ 8.0 


+ 2.1 


85 


+ 2.3 


+ 8.0 


+ 3.0 


87 


+ 4.0 


— 3.5 


+ 2.8 


88 


+ 0.1 


+ 8.0 


+ 8.6 


89 


+ 1.8 


+ 5.0 


+ 7.9 


90 


+ 2.8 


— 8.5 


+ 3.9 


91 


+ 1.1 


— 1.0 


+ 0.6 


93 


+ 1.3 


+ 5.0 


— 0.7 


96 


+ 0.1 




+ 12.5 


97 


— 0.1 




— 1.5 


98 


+ 0.02 




+ 4.3 


100 


+ 5.0 






101 


+ 2.7 




+ 8.3 


103 


+ 3.2 




+ 2.5 


104 


+ 2.0 




+ 5.0 


105 


+ 2.7 




+ 3.6 


107 


+ 2.0 




— 0.3 


108 


+ 3.0 




+ 2.3 


109 


+ 1.5 






110 


+ 1.0 




— 5.0 


111 


+ 2.0 




0.0 


112 


— 0.6 




— 0.6 


113 


+ 0.8 




+ 4.6 


lU 


+ 2.0 




+ 12.3 


115 


+ 0.1 




+ 1.3 


116 


+ 2.0 




+ 4.3 


119 


+ 3.0 




+ 2.6 


120 


— 3.8 




— 15.0 


125 


+ 0.3 




+ 2.5 


127 


+ 1.1 




+ 2.2 



106 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 



No. 


Intelligence. 


12S 


— 0.3 


129 


+ 1.1 


130 


— 0.6 


131 


+ 4.7 


133 


+ 1.2 


m 


+ 1.0 



Memory. 



Maturity. 
+ 2.5 
+ 6.6 
+ 12.0 

+ 3.6 
+ -^.3 



§ 19. Keys Used in Marking the Tests 

Opposite 1 

bad good (r). 

inside outside (r), out (.5), outdoors (.5). 

slow quick (r), fast (r), slowly (.5). 

short tall (r), big (.5). 

little big (r),taU (.5). 

soft loud (r), hard (r), rough (.5). 

black white (r). 

dark light (r), daylight (r). 

sad happy (r), glad (r). 

true false (r), falsehood (.5). 

dislike like (r), love (r). 

poor rich (r). 

well sick (r), ill (r), badly (r). 

sorry glad (r), happy (r). 

thick thin (r). 

full empty (r). 

peace war (r). 

few many (r), a lot (r). 

below above (r), over (r), on top (r). 

enemy friend (r), companion (r). 



Opposite 2 

good bad (r). 

outside inside (r), in (.5), indoors (.5). 

quick slow (r), lazy (.5), slowly (.5). 

tall short (r), little (.5), low (.5). 

big little (r), short (.5). 



KEYS USED IN MARKING TESTS 

loud soft (r), low (r), whisper (.5). 

white black (r). 

light dark (r). 

happy sad (r), sorry (r), sorrow (.5). 

false true (r), right (.5), truth (.5). 

like different (r), dislike (r), unlike (r), hate (r). 

rich poor (r). 

sick well (r), healthy (r). 

glad sorry (r), mad (r). 

thin thick (r), broad (.5), 

empty full (r), filled (r). 

war peace (r). 

many few (r), none (r), 

above below (r), under (r). 

friend enemy (r). 

Part-Whole Test 

door anything that usually has a door (r). 

pillow couch (r), bed (r), sofa (x). 

letter word (r), alphabet (r), envelope (x). 

leaf tree (r), plant (r), book (r), 

button anything usually having buttons. 

nose face (r), head (r), cheek (x). 

cover book (r), bed (r), kettle (r). 

page book (r). 

engine train (r), car (r). 

glass window (r), door (r), tumbler (x). 



107 



Genus-Species Test 

book name of any book or specific class name. 

tree specific tree or class. 

room name of any room. 

toy anything used to play with, play (x). 

name any particular name. 

dish any particular dish. 

boat any kind of boat. 

game any game, toy (x). 

plant any particular plant. 

fish any kind of fish. 



108 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

Noun Test 

book If only the ten nouns were marked or if either 

read 'one' or 'play' was marked as well, the child was 

one given a perfect mark. In all other cases the words 

hat in italics were scored wrong. 

doU 

play 

if 

cup 

ball 

she 

desk 

Mack 

good 

stone 

ring 

dress 

run 

dish 

Dictation 

2 2 2 2 

1. (I have) (one head) (two eyes) (two hands) 

2 
(and ten fingers) =10. 
2 2 2 2 2 

*2. (I sit) (in my seat) (I read) (from a book) (I write) 

2 
(with a pencil) = 12. 
22222222 2 

°3. 1 and 2 are 3. 3 and 4 are 7. 5 and 6 (are more than 10) = 18. 
2 2 2 2 

=4. (In the morning) (I go) (to school) (after school) 

2 2 2 2 

(I play) (at night) (I go) (to bed) =16. 

Change of order equals one half. 

in my chair 1 from the book | - 

*(2) in the seat V =1. out of a book j 

on my seat J with the pencil = 1. 

2 11 

"(3) 5 and 5 are ten = 4. 

=(4) in the afternoon 1 - . ^- . - 

- - , ^ V ^ 1. m the evenmg = 1. 

when school is out j 



CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFECTIVES TESTED 



109 




Fig. 33. Maze, showing the units of amount which were regarded as equal. 
These were determined by experiment. 



1. 


Girl- 


6. 


Girl- 


7. 


Girl- 


9. 


Girl- 


10. 


Girl- 


12. 


Girl- 


13. 


Girl- 


14. 


Girl- 


19. 


Girl- 


23. 


Girl- 


24. 


Girl- 


27. 


Girl- 


29. 


Girl- 


32. 


Girl- 


36. 


Girl- 


39. 


Girl- 


42. 


Boy- 


43. 


Girl- 


44. 


Girl 


45. 


Boy- 


46. 


Boy 


47. 


Boy 


49. 


Boy 



20. Characteristics of the Defectives Tested 

-overgrown — poorly nourished — very nervous. 

-flighty— irritable— spoiled— talked poorly. 

-sister of 6— timid— clumsy- used only single syllables. 

-large head— vicious expression. 

-overgrown— rather small head— stupid. 

-lame — excessively nervous — talks all the time. 

-appears all right— rather slow. 

-appears all right— very sensible. 

-little attention— afraid of everything. 

-appears all right. 

-stupid expression— enlarged tonsils. 

-very large head — wandering expression. 

-epileptic— one hand shrunken. 

-appears all right but very timid. 

-very small head— expression vacant. 

-small head— rather stupid in appearance. 

-giggles— rather shifty eyes— otherwise appears all right. 

-very bad— eyes unsteady— glassy— talks poorly— walks 
clumsily. 

-too stout— epileptic— expression all right. 

-one side of face affected, also hands and feet— talks 
poorly — eyes queer. 

-very small— head small and biassed — eyes unsteady- 
peculiar looking. 

-rather moody— bright sensible face— seemingly all right 
all through. 

-legs paralyzed— talked sensibly— wants to go to work. 



110 PSYCHOLOGY OF MENTALLY DEFICIENT CHILDREN 

50. Girl— eyes unsteady— staring— mouth open— walks poorly, 

51. Boy— just a typical bad boy— comes from reform school- 

bright. 

53. Boy— rather silly— giggles— walks peculiarly, 

54. Boy— giggles a little— eyebrows raised— otherwise appears all 

right, 

55. Boy— eyes a little crossed— seemingly all right and bright 

looking. 

56. Boy— feet paralyzed— almost blind— talks poorly. 

58. Girl— epileptic— very slow— drags feet— very affectionate. 

59. Boy — silly looking — cross-eyed — walks clumsily — mouth open. 

60. Boy — very bad — misshapen head, mouth and ears — walks 

clumsily — talks much. 

61. Girl — rather peculiar — nothing special. 

62. Boy — silly looking— mouth open. 

63. Boy— mouth breather. 

64. Girl — slow and timid. 

65. Girl— mind sketchy— cross-eyed. 

66. Boy — vacant expression. 

67. Boy— very slow— mouth open— left-handed— bright eyes. 

69. Girl— sensible looking— eyes peculiar— tires easily. 

70. Boy— very slow— old face— very helpful. 

71. Boy — nothing special — rather bright looking. 

72. Boy— mouth open— rather repulsive face, 

73. Boy — mouth open — head stoops forward. 

74. Boy— intelligent looking— lazy. 

75. Boy— nothing special. 

76. Boy — face misshapen — left-handed — can't write — slow. 

77. Boy— very deaf— throat obstructed— conscious of defects — 

bright eyes. 

78. Boy— mouth open— dribbled— sleepy eyes. 

79. Boy— sharp face— head stoops. 

80. Boy— face misshapen— very intelligent and appears all right. 

81. Girl— bright, refined child— intelligent— seemingly nothing the 

matter, 

82. Boy— bright face— firm chin— seems all right. 

83. Girl— heavy looking. 

84. Boy— wears glasses— left-handed— talks rather peculiarly, 

85. Boy— generally shrunken appearance— bright expression — 

cross-eyed— mouth open, 

86. Boy— rather heavy— mischievous. 

87. Boy— nothing particular— very bass voice. 

88. Girl — nothing particular. 



CHARACTERISTICS OF DEFECTIVES TESTED HI 

90. Girl— heavy— stout— smiles vacantly— very slow. 

91. Boy— rather wizened— nothing particular. 

92. Girl— tired looking, 

94. Boy— puffy face— rather angelic-looking— aggressive. 

127. Girl— bright, nervous— eyes rather unsteady. 

139. Boy— rather repulsive— eyes staring— mouth open— waddles, 

140. Boy— rather stupid— eyes unsteady. 

141. Boy— cross-eyed but looks bright. 

142. Girl— eyes staring, otherwise looks all right. 

143. Boy— rather sleepy looking— cries readily— lanl?y. 

144-5. Boys— twins— seemingly all right— both bright and happy. 

146. Boy— vacant expression— misshapen ears. 

147. Boy— does not talk— eyes unsteady— walks unsteadily. 

148. Boy— very repulsive— eyes staring— mouth open— talks poorly 

—hands and feet affected. 

149. Girl— epileptic— seems all right but slow. 

150. Boy— very nervous and uneasy— peculiar motion of head when 

talking— talks much. 

151. Boy— one side paralyzed— staring eyes— mouth open. 

152. Boy— bright face— talks indistinctly— walks with difficulty- 

hands affected. 

153. Girl— quick blinking— talks incessantly and incoherently— 

drags feet slightly. 

154. Girl— lanky— talks indistinctly— hands and feet slightly af- 

fected. 

156. Girl— does not talk— mouth open— walks poorly. 

157. Girl— seems all right— inclined to be moody. 



